guam coral reef resilience...

Guam Coral Reef Resilience Strategy

December 2018

1 Guam Coral Reef Resilience Strategy

December 2018

Overview

The Guam Coral Reef Resilience Strategy (GRRS) was developed collaboratively by the Guam Coral Reef Initiative,

which includes partners from local and federal agencies, research institutions, non-profit organizations, and the

private sector. The goal of the GRRS is to enhance the resilience of Guam’s coral reef ecosystems and human

communities to the impacts of climate change by 2025. The GRRS is a tool for adaptive, strategic management; an

opportunity to engage and inform key stakeholders; a mechanism to increase effectiveness of coral reef

management; and a guide for funding projects designed to reach a common goal. The GRRS is intended to be a

living document and thus frequently updated.

The GRRS replaces the Guam Coral Reef Local Action Strategies (LAS) and Guam’s Coral Reef Management Priorities

for 2010-2015, the latter developed cooperatively by the Territory of Guam and the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation

Program (CRCP). The Guam Reef Resilience Strategy will primarily be used by managers to guide coral reef

management and conservation activities and provide justification for grant proposals and other funding requests.

This document is intended for use by coral reef managers

and scientists on Guam but may also be useful to

individuals and groups in other locations seeking to

address the impacts of both local stressors and global

climate change on local reef systems.

The GRRS has four primary objectives:

1. Reframe Guam’s coral reef management efforts and

priorities in the context of coral reef resilience

2. Increase cooperation among local and federal

agencies, decision makers, educational institutions,

non-governmental organizations, resource users,

communities, and business groups

3. Prioritize implementation of coral reef management

interventions

4. Shift from reactive efforts to proactive, adaptive

coral reef management

The target audience of the GRRS includes:

All Government of Guam and federal agencies that work directly or indirectly in coral reef management and/or

conduct activities that may impact Guam’s coral reef ecosystems

Elected and appointed officials and other key decision makers

Non-governmental organizations and community groups

Private entities and other stakeholder groups that conduct activities that impact and/or rely upon coral reef

ecosystems, including the tourism industry and the fishing community

Grant makers and foundations


December 2018

Contributors

Prepared by: Whitney Hoot, Bureau of Statistics and Plans ([email protected])

Recommended citation:

Guam Coral Reef Initiative. 2018. Guam Coral Reef Resilience Strategy. 69 pp

Developed by representatives from:

Government of Guam:

Bureau of Statistics and Plans

Guam Coastal Management Program

Department of Agriculture

Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources

Forestry and Soil Resources Division

Environmental Protection Agency

Guam Visitors Bureau

University of Guam:

Center for Island Sustainability

Sea Grant Program

Marine Laboratory

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Park Service

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Naval Facilities Engineering Command

The Nature Conservancy

Humatak Community Foundation

Fish Eye Marine Park

Underwater World Guam

Photographs:

Dave Burdick (Cover, pp. 1, 6, 8, 9,

15, 17, 21, 23, 39)

Whitney Hoot (pp. 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14,

16, 19)

Tony Azios (p. 10)

Ashton Williams (p. 13)

Christian Benitez (p. 28)


December 2018

Table of contents Acronyms ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………

4

CHamoru words ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……… 5 Background ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……… 6 Value of Guam’s reefs …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6 Threats facing Guam’s reefs …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7 What is coral reef resilience? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 14 Overview of federal policies …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 15 Overview of local policies and plans …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 19 Micronesia Challenge …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 26 Development of the GRRS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……… 27 Survey on coral reef management …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 27 Overview of Reef Resilience Workshop …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 27 Overview of Climate-smart Workshop …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 29 Coral reef management outcomes ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……… 30 Effective fisheries management …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 30 Decreased LBSP …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 32 Increased reef response and restoration …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 34 Sustainable recreational use and tourism …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 36 Human community resilience and CCA …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 37 References ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……… 40 Appendices ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……… 51 I: Coral reef management survey results …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 51 II: Attendees: Reef Resilience Workshop …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 61 III: Attendees: Climate-smart Workshop …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 63 IV: Guam Vulnerability Assessment …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 64 V. Priority sites and key fisheries taxa …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 69 Integration with long term monitoring …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 30


December 2018

Acronyms

ADT = Adaptation Design Tool under CCAP project

BMP = Best management practice

BSP = Guam Bureau of Statistics and Plans

CCAP = Corals & Climate Adaptation Planning project

C3PR = Guam Council on Climate Change

Preparedness and Resiliency

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

CIA = Central Intelligence Agency

CIS = Center for Island Sustainability at UOG

CITES = Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

CNMI = Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana

Islands

COTS = Crown of thorns sea star (Acanthaster planci)

CRCA = Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000

CRCP = Coral Reef Conservation Program within

NOAA

CRI = Guam Coral Reef Initiative

CRICC = Guam CRI Coordinating Committee

CRIPAC = Guam CRI Policy Advisory Committee

CRTF = US Coral Reef Task Force

CWA = Clean Water Act of 1972

DAWR = Guam Department of Wildlife Resources

within DOAG

DLM = Guam Department of Land Management

DOAG = Guam Department of Agriculture

DOD = US Department of Defense

DPR = Guam Department of Parks and Recreation

DPW = Guam Department of Public Works

EFH = Essential fish habitat

EO = Executive order

EOR = Eyes of the Reef Marianas

EPA = US Environmental Protection Agency

ESA = Endangered Species Act of 1973

FOR Guam = Friends of Reefs Guam

FSRD = Forestry and Soil Resources Division within

DOAG

FWCA = Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934

GAR = Guam Administrative Rules and Regulations

GCA = Guam Code Annotated

GCC = Guam Community College

GCMP = Guam Coastal Management Program within

BSP

GCRI = Guam Coral Reef Initiative

GEDA = Guam Economic Development Authority

GEPA = Guam Environmental Protection Agency

GHRA = Guam Hotel and Restaurant Association

GRRS = Guam Coral Reef Resilience Strategy

GSWA = Guam Solid Waste Authority

GVB = Guam Visitors Bureau

GWA = Guam Waterworks Authority

LAC = Limits of Acceptable Change

LAS = Guam’s coral reef Local Action Strategies

LBSP = Land-based sources of pollution

MDA = Micronesian Divers Association

MP = Marine preserve

MSA = Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act of 1976

NAVFAC = Naval Facilities Engineering Command

NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act of 1970

NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service within

NOAA

NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System

NPS = National Park Service

NRCS = Natural Resources Conservation Service

within the USDA

NRDA = Natural resource damage assessment

OPA = Oil Pollution Act of 1990

PL = Public law

POC = Guam Coral Reef Point of Contact

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of

1976

UOG = University of Guam

UOGML = University of Guam Marine Laboratory

USCG = U.S. Coast Guard

USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

UWW = Underwater World

WERI = Water and Environmental Research Institute

of the Western Pacific at UOG

WestPac = Western Pacific Regional Fishery

Management Council

WTP = Willingness to pay


December 2018

CHamoru words

FISHES

English name CHamoru name Scientific name

Juvenile goatfish Ti’ao Mullidae

Juvenile jack (trevally) I’i’ Carangidae

Juvenile rabbitfish (< 5 cm) Manahak Siganidae

Adult rabbitfish Sesjun Siganidae

Convict tang Kichu Acanthurus triostegus

Unicornfish Tataga’ Naso unicornis

Naso tang Hangon Naso literatus

Humphead wrasse Tangison Cheilinus undulatus

Bumphead parrotfish Atuhong Bolbometopon muricatum

INVERTEBRATES

English name CHamoru name Scientific name

Trochus snail Aliling Trochus niloticus

Giant clam Hima Tridacna spp.

Coconut crab Ayuyu Birgus latro

Sea cucumber Balate’ Holothuroidea

Christmas tree worm Ulo’ Spirobranchus spp.

Blue sea star Puti’on tasi Linckia laevigata

FISHING METHODS AND GEAR

English name CHamoru name

Cast net Talaya

Drag net/seine Chenchulon ma halla

Surround net Chenchulon ma sugon

Trap net Chenchulon ma mongle

Butterfly net Chenchulon ababbang

Gill net Tekken

These CHamoru words and spellings were garnered from local language experts, existing Guam statutes, and Kerr 2012.


December 2018

Background

Despite the immense value of Guam’s coral reefs

and their associated ecosystem services, Guam’s

reefs are experiencing rapid decline due to

combined local stressors and the impacts of global

climate change. As a result, local coral reef

managers and scientists are focused on

implementing adaptive management interventions

based on the best available science to reduce local

pressures and increase coral reef resilience to

climate change. Guam’s five desired outcomes for

coral reef management are: (F) effective fisheries

management; (P) decreased land-based sources of

pollution; (RR) increased reef response and

restoration; (RU) sustainable recreational use and

tourism; and (H) human community resilience and

climate change adaptation.

Value of Guam’s coral reefs

More than 5,100 species inhabit Guam’s coastal waters, including nearly 400 species of stony corals and over 1,000

nearshore fishes (Paulay 2003, Porter et al. 2005). In addition to the value of their biodiversity, coral reefs provide

and support numerous ecosystem services, including commercial and subsistence fisheries, tourism, coastal

protection, research and education opportunities, and support for social and cultural activities (Laurans et al. 2013).

In the past, nearshore fishing provided a large portion of the CHamoru diet on Guam (Amesbury and Hunter-

Anderson 2003). Although locally-caught fish are no longer a significant source of food for most residents, Guam’s

coral reefs are still used for subsistence fishing, some commercial fishing, and recreation by both locals and tourists

(Burdick et al. 2008).

Calculating the monetary value of an ecosystem is complex and, in many cases, controversial; however, these

valuations provide important metrics for natural resource managers and decision makers. In 2007, the total

economic value of Guam’s coral reefs was estimated at $169 million per year (adjusted to 2018 dollars; van

Beukering et al. 2007). This figure incorporates six key ecosystem services of coral reefs: tourism, recreation,

commercial fisheries, coastal protection, research, and amenity. About 75% of this value ($127 million, in 2018

dollars) was attributed to tourism (van Beukering et al. 2007). The Atlas of Ocean Wealth, produced by The Nature

Conservancy (TNC) in 2016, appraised Guam’s coral reef resources at a higher rate, indicating that the annual value

of Guam’s reefs from reef-based tourism alone is $323 million USD per year (Spalding et al. 2016).

Today, tourism is the largest industry on Guam, providing over 18,000 jobs and 60% of the island’s yearly business

revenue (Guam Visitors Bureau (GVB) 2014). In 2016, over 1.5 million visitors came to Guam and spent over $1.5

billion on the island (GVB 2017). This represents an almost 25% increase in annual visitor arrivals since 2007 (GVB

2011). According to exit surveys, over 30% of Guam’s visitors cite the marine environment as a top reason for visiting

the island (GVB 2018). Given this increase in visitor arrivals and spending, and the importance of Guam’s coral reef

and associated activities for the tourism industry (snorkeling, diving, etc.), the economic value of Guam’s reefs has

presumably increased in the last decade, although there has not been a formal assessment since 2007. GVB hopes

http://maps.oceanwealth.org/


December 2018

to attract two million annual visitors to Guam by 2020 (GVB 2014). Additionally, as coral cover has declined

significantly in recent years due to impacts such as crown of thorns sea star (COTS) predation and warming-induced

coral bleaching, each remaining square meter is increasingly valuable.

Reef quality is important to many tourists, especially divers. Environmentally conscious divers have greater

willingness to pay (WTP) for higher reef quality; more abundant and diverse fish populations with larger individuals;

the opportunity to see charismatic species; and diving in marine protected areas (Grafeld et al. 2016). Reef users

are more willing to pay fees to visit healthy coral reefs; a fee for divers and/or snorkelers could be used on Guam

to fund management and conservation through tourism (Grafeld et al. 2016). A survey of over 200 individuals (76%

visitors, 24% residents) who participated in scuba diving on Guam’s reefs in 2013 found that 46% of the divers had

strong preferences for reefs with greater fish biomass and larger fish, especially sharks (Grafeld et al. 2016). The

study found that divers’ WTP increases for reefs with greater biomass, diversity, and abundance of charismatic

megafauna such as sharks, turtles, and Napoleon wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) (Grafeld et al. 2016). Based on the

estimated ~300,000 dives occurring on Guam’s reefs per year (from van Beukering et al. 2007), greater fish biomass

could increase total WTP by $3.4-4.5 million, while decreased biomass in preserves could reduce diver WTP by $1

million (Grafeld et al. 2016).

Threats facing Guam’s reefs

Although coral reefs have survived for 500 million years, their continued existence is at risk due to increasing human

impacts. Around one fifth of all coral reefs have already been lost and over one quarter of surviving reefs are in

danger of imminent decline (Wilkinson 2006; Riegl et al. 2009). Guam’s coral reef ecosystems face an array of

threats, encompassing both local stressors and the impacts of global climate change and ocean acidification.

The shallow nearshore waters surrounding Guam host approximately 108 km2 of coral reef habitat, with an

additional 110 km2 of reef area located greater than 3 nautical miles offshore (Burdick et al. 2008). The health of

these reefs has deteriorated in recent decades, indicated by overall downward trends in coral cover, coral

recruitment rates, and fish biomass. Coral cover on

Guam’s seaward slopes has decreased by

approximately 80% in the last half century, with mean

coral cover declining from about 50% in the 1960s to

10% since 2009, based on local studies and data

collected by NOAA (Randall 1971, Burdick et al. 2008,

Burdick 2016). Two studies conducted on coral

recruitment on Guam’s reefs in 1979 and 1992, using

similar methodologies, recorded the number of coral

recruits that settled on PVC tiles; the mean number of

recruits was 98% less in 1992 compared to 1979

(Birkeland et al. 1981, Birkeland 1997). Creel surveys

conducted by the Division of Aquatic and Wildlife

Resources (DAWR) within the Guam Department of

Agriculture (DOAG) indicate that mean total annual

catch declined by 63% between 1985 and 2012, while

reconstructions of historical biomass of target fish

species showed that fish biomass decreased by around

65% during this period (Weijerman et al. 2016).


December 2018

The growing population has increased the strain on Guam’s coral reef resources. The island, which has a total land

area of 544 km2 and 125.5 km of coastline, is home to over 167,000 people, with a density of about 300 people per

km2 (Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) 2017). This equates to over 1,500 people per km2 of coral reef. Sandin et al.

(2008) found that reefs surrounding densely populated islands had lower fish biomass, fewer top predators, less

coral cover, and greater abundance of fleshy

macroalgae. In addition to the stress on local

reefs from Guam’s inhabitants, the tourism

industry is booming; over 1.5 million visitors

came to the island in 2016 and two million

annual visitors are expected by 2020 (GVB

2014, 2017). The increase in human

inhabitants and visitors means Guam’s reefs

are subjected to greater impacts from

pollution and runoff, coastal development,

and recreational activities.

Guam’s coral reefs have experienced severe

degradation in the past; however, reefs

were able to recover from acute impacts. In

the early 1970s, a crown of thorns sea star

(COTS) outbreak resulted in declines from

50-60% coral cover to less than 1% coral

cover on some reefs; surveys conducted

twelve years later found that coral cover had

recovered to over 60% (Colgan 1987). Now,

chronic local stressors such as poor water

quality, sedimentation, and heavy fishing pressure threaten reef health and impede the ability of Guam’s reefs to

recover from events like COTS outbreaks, severe storms, and coral bleaching (Burdick et al. 2008). Other local

stressors facing Guam’s reefs include vessel groundings and associated oil and chemical spills; recreational use and

misuse; marine debris; dredging; outbreaks of invasive and nuisance species; and coral diseases.

Fishing pressure and loss of herbivores

Globally, 83% of fished coral reefs have less than half of the expected fish biomass of unfished reefs, making fishing

the leading cause of decreased reef function (MacNeil et al. 2015). The health of Guam’s reefs has been severely

impacted by fishing pressure. A meta-analysis of over 832 coral reefs in 64 localities found that only two localities

had fish biomass low enough to indicate fisheries collapse: Papua New Guinea and Guam (MacNeil et al. 2015).

NOAA surveys conducted in 2011 recorded median reef fish biomass around Guam at 20.6 g/m2 (Williams et al.

2012). Williams et al. (2015) indicated that coral reef fish biomass on Guam’s reefs was 66% lower than the

predicted biomass if there were no human impacts present. Without the impacts of fishing, the mean expected fish

biomass on a coral reef is approximately 100 g/m2 (MacNeil et al. 2015). It is important to note that the baseline

fish biomass of a “pristine” reef system varies according to numerous biological and oceanographic factors; thus,

comparing Guam’s current fish stocks with a global expected average must be done cautiously.


December 2018

Data collected during DAWR creel surveys

reveal decreased herbivore catch rates in

recent decades, signifying decreased biomass

of these fishes (Weijerman et al. 2013).

Herbivorous fishes (e.g. parrotfish,

surgeonfish, rabbitfish, unicornfish) are vital

to the health of coral reef ecosystems as they

consume the algae that could overgrow reefs

if left unchecked, and they create available

substrate for coral growth and settlement

(Mumby et al. 2013, Rasher et al. 2013,

MacNeil et al. 2015). Greater herbivore

biomass is correlated with lower macroalgae

abundance, while reefs with lower herbivore

biomass and higher macroalgae cover have

fewer coral recruits (Williams and Polunin

2000, Hughes et al. 2007, Mumby et al.

2007b). Coral reef health may be especially

susceptible to declines in parrotfish

abundance and herbivores overall are very

sensitive to fishing pressure (Mumby et al.

2007b, Mumby et al. 2013). Intact reef fish communities and herbivore abundance are important for preventing

phase shifts from coral-dominated to algal-dominated systems and promoting reef recovery after disturbance

(Hughes et al. 2007, Mumby et al. 2007a).

DAWR creel surveys indicate that Guam’s coral reef fisheries have not yet recovered following a steep decline during

the 1980s (Burdick et al. 2008). Catch data show that Guam’s coral reefs have high fishing pressure, declining fish

stocks, and decreased reef ecosystem function (Houk et al. 2012). Fishing methods commonly used on Guam’s reefs

include spear fishing (while free diving and scuba diving), hook and line, bottom fishing, jigging, spincasting, trolling,

hook and gaff, and several types of nets: cast nets (talaya), gill nets (tekken), drag nets (chenchulu), and surround

nets (Burdick et al. 2008). In addition to heavy fishing pressure, the use of particular fishing methods and gear (e.g.

night-time scuba spearfishing with artificial light and monofilament gill nets) may be contributing to fishery declines

and reef degradation; these methods are still legal on Guam, although they have been banned on many other Pacific

Islands (Burdick et al. 2008). These fishing methods may have resulted in shifts in fish community composition on

Guam’s reefs from large, slow-growing fishes to small, fast growing species; unsustainable harvest of Napoleon

wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus); and decreased stocks of other large wrasses, snappers, groupers, and parrotfishes

(Houk et al. 2018). Additionally, derelict gill nets, which are regularly found by DAWR conservation officers, kill fish

and damage corals (Flores 2006, Burdick et al. 2008). The decline of populations of large, slower-growing

parrotfishes is of particular concern due to the vital role these species play in reducing macroalgae abundance and

maintaining coral-dominated reef habitats.

Guam has five marine preserves covering 33.1 km2 of nearshore marine waters, which were established in 1997

and enforced beginning in 2001 (Burdick et al. 2008). One of the marine preserves (Sasa Bay) is strictly no-take,

while the others permit cultural fishing practices and/or hook-and-line fishing from shore (Burdick et al. 2008).

Guam’s marine preserves have greater fish biomass overall than reefs without fishing restrictions, particularly for

parrotfishes and surgeonfishes, although there is no significant difference in the benthic community (coral cover,


December 2018

algae cover, or topographic complexity) for marine preserves compared to unprotected reefs (Williams et al. 2012).

Unfortunately, poaching is common in Guam’s marine preserves as there are insufficient resources and manpower

for consistent enforcement island-wide. In addition to lack of enforcement, one of the greatest challenges to

effective fisheries management on Guam is the lack of reliable scientific data to inform management initiatives and

guide policy efforts (Houk et al. 2012).

Land-based sources of pollution (LBSP)

LBSP include illegal dumping and runoff of storm water, waste water, fertilizers, and sediment from construction

sites; erosion due to fires and recreational off-roading; and urban areas dominated by impervious surfaces. The

main pollutants that impact Guam’s nearshore waters and beaches are hydrocarbons, microbes, and sediment

(Burdick et al. 2008). Sedimentation, caused by severe upland erosion, is one of the greatest threats to Guam’s coral

reef ecosystems (Gawel 1999, Burdick et al. 2008). Excessive sediment and eutrophication can reduce light

availability for primary production by coral symbionts; smother corals and other benthic organisms; increase coral

disease prevalence; inhibit coral reproduction; and impact the settlement, recruitment, and survival of coral larvae

(Ward and Harrison 1997, Gilmour 1999, Wolanski et al. 2003, Haapkylä et al. 2011, Erftemeijer et al. 2012, Junjie

et al. 2014, Jones et al. 2015).

In northern Guam, LBSP are discharged through freshwater seeps linked to drainage basins, storm water outfalls,

and the Northern District Wastewater Treatment Plant outfall. These impacts have been documented in Agana Bay

and Tumon Bay (Moran and Jenson 2004, Denton et al. 2005, Redding et al. 2013). Although the shoreline

surrounding the Tumon Bay Marine Preserve is highly developed, there is no comprehensive storm water

management plan for the area. Construction of new hotels and practices by existing hotels (e.g. heavy fertilizer use)

are likely impacting water quality and coral reef health in Tumon Bay, the island’s tourist center. In Apra Harbor,

developments by the US Navy and Port Authority of Guam may be affecting water quality and reef communities


Sedimentation and decreased water quality from runoff and freshwater inputs are especially concerning for reefs

along Guam’s southwestern coast. Towed diver surveys conducted by NOAA in 2005 found that coral cover was

over 50% higher on northeastern, northwestern, and southeastern reefs compared to reefs in the southwest (Pacific

Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) 2006, Burdick et al. 2008). Guam’s southwestern reefs have less coral cover

and crustose coralline algae (CCA), greater abundance of non-calcifying algae, lower fish biomass, and higher

turbidity compared to other parts of the island (Williams et al. 2012). The original drivers of this relatively low coral

cover may be COTS outbreaks and a road construction project during the early 1990s that resulted in sedimentation


December 2018

and widespread coral loss along the southwest

coast (Turgeon et al. 2002, Burdick et al. 2008).

Additionally, reefs in this area are subjected to

chronic poor water quality due to riverine inputs


Numerous studies indicate that sedimentation is

having detrimental effects on coral reef health in

southwestern Guam (Minton 2005, Rongo 2005,

Minton et al. 2007, Richmond et al. 2007).

Although Guam’s southern reefs may be

accustomed to higher sediment loads than

northern reefs because of their proximity to rivers,

it is likely that the extremely poor health of reefs

in this area is largely due to increased erosion and

sedimentation driven by human activities, such as

accidental fires and arson; poorly planned construction of roads and buildings; clearing of forested lands; grazing

by wild pigs and deer; and recreational off-roading (Burdick et al. 2008).

High nutrient loads have been linked to increased abundance of nuisance species and prevalence of coral diseases.

Although the exact drivers of COTS outbreaks are not fully understood, evidence indicates that high levels of

nutrients resulting in elevated phytoplankton density (algal blooms) may increase the survival rates of COTS larvae

and lead to outbreaks (Birkeland 1982, Brodie et al. 2005, Fabricius et al. 2010). This is another reason why

sedimentation is a major cause for concern, as COTS outbreaks have been a major driver of coral cover loss on

Guam’s fore-reefs in recent years (Burdick 2016, Raymundo et al. 2018, in review). Marine bacteria and fungi are

typically nitrogen-limited, thus nutrient enrichment may increase the abundance of these taxa, some of which are

responsible for coral diseases (Bruno et al. 2003, Redding et al. 2013). Poor water quality and high nutrient

concentrations can decrease coral fitness, leading to increased susceptibility to infections and bleaching (Bruno et

al. 2003, Haapkylä et al. 2011, Vega Thurber et al. 2014). Other pollutants, such as plastic waste, have also been

linked to increased coral disease prevalence (Lamb et al. 2018).

Recreational use and misuse

Coral reefs provide the sandy beaches and calm bays that attract tourists to Guam and also protect the coastal

hotels, restaurants, and attractions they visit. However, the growing number of tourists increases the risk of impacts

from recreational use and misuse on local reefs. In 2016, Guam welcomed over 1.5 million visitors with about 85%

of arrivals coming from Japan (50.4%) and Korea (34.8%) (GVB 2017). In exit surveys, many Japanese and Korean

visitors reported participation in reef-based activities while on Guam, such as snorkeling (19% and 27%,

respectively) and scuba diving (9% and 7% respectively) (QMark Research 2016a, 2016b). This represents almost

300,000 snorkelers and over 100,000 scuba divers on Guam’s reefs per year, not including local residents or visitors

from outside of Japan and Korea. Many of these snorkelers and divers are inexperienced and unfamiliar with coral

reef ecosystems, and thus more likely to cause abrasion or breakage by touching, kicking, or stepping on corals.

GVB aims to reach two million visitors per year by 2020 (GVB 2014). If their goal is met, this could mean almost

400,000 snorkelers and close to 150,000 divers on Guam’s reefs per year from Japan and Korea alone, if the

proportion of visitors from these nations and their activity preferences remain constant. In addition to snorkeling,


December 2018

visitors also report engaging in various activities that

both depend on and potentially impact coral reefs,

including wind surfing, jet skiing, parasailing, visiting

the beach, and participating in dolphin tours (QMark

Research 2016a, 2016b). There are also several

businesses on Guam that provide charter fishing

trips and fish feeding excursions.

Although the impacts of recreational use and misuse

on Guam’s coral reef ecosystems are likely far less

than those associated with LBSP and fishing

pressure, particular high value reef areas have

increased risk for damage associated with

recreational use due to the number of visitors.

Concerns about recreational use and misuse are

greatest for the Tumon Bay Marine Preserve and the Piti Bomb Holes Marine Preserve, both of which are heavily

used by both tourists and local residents. Studies on recreational use show that heavily used scuba diving and

snorkeling sites may have higher rates of physical damage to corals, increased predation by the corallivorous snail

Drupella cornus, greater prevalence of coral diseases, and decreased coral growth rates (Hawkins et al. 1999, Guzner

et al. 2010, Lamb et al. 2014). A spatial analysis of human users in Tumon Bay found a strong positive correlation

between human user density and the prevalence of coral damage (Hoot et al. 2017). Recreational users may also

cause reef damage while operating motorized watercraft, such as jet skis, which are permitted in East Agana Bay,

Apra Harbor, and Cocos Lagoon (Burdick et al. 2008). Raymundo et al. (2018) found that sites where corals suffered

physical injuries due to vessel groundings had increased prevalence of coral disease.

A growing body of research identifies sunscreen as a source of chemical pollutants that damage coral reefs.

Danovaro et al. (2008) found that the UV filters in sunscreen may catalyze viral infections that result in bleaching in

several coral species. Oxybenzone, a UV filter found in sunscreen and other skincare products, has negative effects

on coral larvae and other reef organisms, such as flatworms, diatoms, soft corals, and anemones (Downs et al. 2015,

McCoshum et al. 2016). Although reef-safe sunscreens are promoted in many coastal tourist destinations, and some

places, including the state of Hawaii, have outlawed sunscreens containing oxybenzone, reef-safe sunscreens are

uncommon on Guam.

Impacts of climate change and ocean acidification

Anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have severe implications for reef health, such as decreasing coral

calcification rates caused by ocean acidification, promoting outbreaks and spread of coral diseases, and causing

thermal stress that leads to coral bleaching and death (Riegl et al. 2009). Although ocean acidification poses a severe

threat to coral reef ecosystems, which depend on the growth and survival of calcifying organisms, ocean warming

is considered a more immediate threat to coral reefs globally, particularly in light of recent widespread coral

bleaching and mortality between 2014 and 2017.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the highest it has been in 15 million years, which is

warming our atmosphere and oceans (Bijma et al. 2013). From 1971 to 2010, more than 90% of the heat energy

stored on this planet was absorbed by the oceans, with most warming occurring in shallow waters; in the past forty

years, water temperature has increased by an average of 0.11⁰C per decade in the shallowest 75 m of the oceans


December 2018

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC) 2014). While ocean

warming endangers many marine

ecosystems, it is particularly

threatening to coral reefs because

reef-building stony corals are

restricted to the relatively shallow

waters where their algal symbionts

(zooxanthellae) can receive sufficient

light to photosynthesize and provide

oxygen and glucose to their coral

polyp hosts (Sebens 1994). Warming

seas and more frequent temperature

anomalies damage the photosynthetic

organelles of zooxanthellae, making

them toxic to their hosts. As a result,

corals eject their symbionts and lose

their vivid colors, thus appearing “bleached” (Lesser 2007; Baker et al. 2008). Corals are sensitive to slight

temperature changes because most reefs exist where the water temperature is near the thermal tolerance

threshold for corals. Coral bleaching can occur when sea surface temperature is only 1⁰C above the long-term

summer season mean (Hoegh-Guldberg 2011). Bleached corals can recover if temperatures return to normal and

the stressor is removed, but severe bleaching can cause widespread coral mortality, as the corals essentially starve

to death without their symbiotic partners. The greatest threat to coral reefs from bleaching is the degradation of

reef structure and habitat, which is associated with declines in reef-based ecosystem services and biodiversity loss

for corals and other reef-associated organisms (Graham et al. 2007, Oxford Economics 2009).

Only one decade ago, coral bleaching events were considered uncommon for Guam (Porter et al. 2005). From 1998

to 2013, coral reef ecosystems around Guam were impacted by minimal to moderate seasonal bleaching with high

rates of coral recovery (Raymundo 2016). However in the last five years, coral bleaching due to ocean warming has

become the most severe and visible impact on Guam’s reefs, with widespread bleaching occurring in 2013, 2014,

2016, and 2017. In 2013, extensive coral bleaching and mortality were recorded on Guam’s shallow reef flats and

at deeper sites around the island, with 85% of coral genera affected. Severe coral bleaching occurred on Guam’s

shallow and deeper reefs again in 2014. As a result of these back-to-back bleaching events and El Niño-associated

extreme low tides in 2015, Guam lost approximately half of its staghorn corals (Acropora spp.), equating to about

17.5 hectares (Raymundo et al. 2017). In 2016, Guam’s reef flats were severely impacted by coral bleaching,

although deeper reefs were spared (Raymundo et al. 2018, in review). In 2017, widespread coral bleaching and

mortality affected Guam, with moderate to severe bleaching island-wide impacting multiple coral genera to depths

of 40 m (Raymundo et al. 2018, in review). For further details on the impacts of coral bleaching on Guam’s reefs, see

the Guam Coral Bleaching Response Plan (Hoot and Burdick 2017).

Coral bleaching events are expected to become more frequent and severe in the future. If greenhouse gas emissions

continue at current rates, most coral reefs will be affected by severe, annual coral bleaching by the middle of this

century and almost all reefs will experience severe yearly bleaching by 2100 (van Hooidonk et al. 2013, 2014, 2016).

IPCC climate models indicate that by 2045, Guam’s coral reefs may experience severe thermal stress and coral

bleaching annually if global greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced (Heron et al. 2016, van Hooidonk et al. 2016,

Maynard and Raymundo 2017).


December 2018

What is coral reef resilience?

Coral reef resilience is the capacity of a coral reef ecosystem to absorb or resist the impacts of disturbances (such

as severe storms, coral bleaching events, and COTS outbreaks) and subsequently recover to pre-disturbance

condition (Hughes at al. 2007). A resilient reef may be characterized by high diversity and functional redundancy of

reef taxa; high fish biomass and diversity among functional groups, especially herbivores; high density of juvenile

corals and fishes and strong larval supply; high structural complexity; high coral cover versus algal cover; and/or

good water quality (Nystrom 2006, Cote and Darling 2010, Graham et al. 2015, Heenan and Williams 2013, Maynard

et al. 2015). When resilience decreases, a coral reef can undergo a phase shift from coral dominance to algal

dominance (Hughes et al. 2007, Mumby et al. 2007b). Reefs that are unable to recover from a disturbance may also

experience a shift in coral community from stress-susceptible corals (e.g. Acropora, Montipora) to stress-tolerant

taxa (e.g. Porites, Platygyra, Favia) (Loya et al. 2001, Rachello-Dolmen and Cleary 2007, Cleary et al. 2008, Cote and

Darling 2010). In the context of reef management, coral reef resilience is a general indicator of reef health and the

ability of the ecosystem to stay healthy while facing the impacts of climate change.

There remain questions regarding the combined effects of local stressors, climate change, and acidification on coral

reefs and the relative impacts of these threats (Anthony et al. 2011, 2015). Some research appears to contradict

the theory that reduction of local stressors can improve reef resilience to climate change. Even more remote reefs

that do not experience the degree of local threats facing reefs near densely populated areas have been severely

impacted by coral bleaching, indicating that the intensity of local stressors is not the only factor influencing reef

resilience (Cote and Darling 2010, Bruno and Valdivia 2016, Hughes et al. 2017). There is also conflicting evidence

as to whether reefs that currently experience high stress conditions (e.g. temperature fluctuations, chronic

sedimentation, decreased fish biomass) may be better adapted to survive future impacts of climate change (Cote

and Darling 2010, Darling et al. 2010, Camp et al. 2016).

Despite this uncertainty, several empirical studies have shown that local pressures, including overfishing and

degraded water quality, can increase coral bleaching susceptibility (Carilli et al. 2009, Vega Thurber et al. 2013,

Zaneveld et al. 2016), while reefs subject to less local stress may be more likely to recovery from disturbance (Houk

et al. 2014, Graham et al. 2015). Although local reef management efforts cannot prevent ocean warming or

acidification, which are caused by the emission of greenhouse gasses, they may be able to improve the health of

coral reef ecosystems and thus decrease coral reef vulnerability to these global threats (Shaver et al. 2018). Chronic

stressors such as poor water quality due to pollution, overfishing, and ocean warming and acidification threaten

the processes on coral reefs (e.g. herbivory,

recruitment) that maintain the resilience needed for

reefs to survive disturbances such as bleaching

events, severe storms, and COTS outbreaks

(Anthony et al. 2015). Local management efforts

designed to increase coral reef resilience generally

focus on reducing chronic local stressors (Hughes at

al. 2005, Mumby and Steneck 2008, Cote and

Darling 2010). Evaluating the impact of any local

management initiative or stressor on reef resilience

is challenging, but vital to improving our

understanding of how we can conserve coral reefs

in the Anthropocene (Cote and Darling 2010, Darling

et al. 2010, McClanahan et al. 2012).


December 2018

Overview of federal policies relevant to coral reef protection and management on Guam

Executive Order (EO) 13089 – Coral Reef Protection, 1998:

EO 13089 was issued by President Clinton in 1998 to “preserve and protect the biodiversity, health, heritage,

and social and economic value of US coral reef ecosystems and the marine environment.” The EO states that

any federal agency whose actions may affect coral reef ecosystems must identify these actions and ensure that

they do not degrade these ecosystems.

EO 13089 established the US Coral Reef Task Force (CRTF), an interagency entity co-chaired by the Secretary of

the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce via the Administrator of NOAA, and requires the CRTF to oversee

implementation of this EO. The CRTF is also responsible for coral reef mapping and monitoring; research;

conservation, mitigation, and restoration; and promoting international cooperation to protect global coral reef

resources.

In 2000, the CRTF produced the National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs as a roadmap for achieving the

purpose of EO 13089. This was the first national plan in the US to address the degradation of coral reefs. The

Action Plan outlines 13 conservation strategies to address threats facing coral reefs and eight core conservation

principals to guide future efforts.

For more information: https://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-

Assessment/13089/index.aspx, https://www.coralreef.gov/about

Coral Reef Conservation Act (CRCA) of 2000:

The CRCA was enacted to preserve, sustain, and restore coral reef ecosystems; promote effective management

and sustainable use of coral reef resources; collect data on the health of coral reefs; support and fund

conservation programs; and establish a mechanism to collect and distribute donations from the private sector

for coral reef conservation. The CRCA includes definitions for the following terms: coral, coral reef, coral reef

ecosystem, and coral products.

Under the CRCA, the NOAA Administrator may provide grant funds to US jurisdictions that manage coral reefs

to address the impacts of natural disasters or other unforeseen emergencies on coral reef ecosystem health.

The CRCA established the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP), which is focused on reducing the

impacts of climate change, unsustainable fishing, and land-based sources of pollution on coral reefs. CRCP

administers grants for coral reef conservation projects and programs.

In 2002, NOAA produced the National Coral Reef Action Strategy to fulfil the mandate of the CRCA and evaluate

implementation of the National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs.

For more information: https://coralreef.noaa.gov/about/welcome.html

https://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Assessment/13089/index.aspx


https://www.coralreef.gov/about

https://coralreef.noaa.gov/about/welcome.html


December 2018

Legislation requiring consultations and/or permitting

The following federal laws require consultation for projects that have a federal nexus (permit, funding, action, etc.).

All of these laws have been used to prevent impacts to coral reefs.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), 1934:

The FWCA gives the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) authority to evaluate potential impacts to fish and

wildlife from planned water resources development projects that control or modify any stream or water body,

and requires that these resources receive “equal consideration” as other features of the project. Under the

FWCA, any federal agencies that license, permit, or construct water resources development must consult with

USFWS, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within NOAA in some cases, in addition to state

resource agencies, to describe the potential effects of the proposed project on fish and wildlife and plans to

mitigate any negative impacts.

Under the FWCA, NMFS evaluates the potential impacts of proposed projects on fish species and associated

habitats that are outside the mandate of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and provides recommendations for

decreasing impacts. Consultations under the FWCA are typically integrated into a consultation process with the

Clean Water Act (Section 404), the National Environmental Policy Act, or other federal requirements.

For more information: https://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/fwcoord.html, https://darrp.noaa.gov/fish-and-

wildlife-coordination-act

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1970:

NEPA requires that all federal agencies produce environmental assessments and environmental impact

statements for proposed actions that may affect the environment. Before undertaking a major action, a federal

agency must calculate potential environmental impacts, consider alternatives to the planned project, and make

a decision based on the outcomes of the assessment. The agency must also provide the opportunity or public

review of the proposed action. NEPA compliance is overseen by the Council on Environmental Quality within

the Office of the President.

For more information: https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-act

Clean Water Act (CWA), 1972:

The CWA, administered and enforced by the US

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is the

principal federal law regulating water pollution.

The CWA provides a framework for regulating

the discharge of pollutants into US waters and

determining water quality standards for all

surface waters. Under the CWA, it is illegal to

discharge any point source pollutant into

navigable waters without a permit from the

EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) program.

Section 404 of the CWA regulates dredge and fill

activities and lists coral reefs as “special aquatic

sites” requiring additional protection and

scrutiny. Permitting agencies must evaluate

alternative actions and document avoidance

https://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/fwcoord.html

https://darrp.noaa.gov/fish-and-wildlife-coordination-act


https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-act


December 2018

and impact minimization efforts. Unavoidable losses may require compensatory mitigation to replace lost

ecosystem function.

President Bush’s US Ocean Action Plan (2004) directed the EPA to develop biological criteria (“biocriteria”) and

evaluation methods for US jurisdictions to assess coral reef health and water quality. In addition to chemical

and physical water quality standards, US states and territories can set biocriteria to measure the condition of

biological communities, such as coral reefs, and determine whether the body of water is meeting biological

standards (Bradley et al. 2010).

For more information: https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973:

The ESA was enacted to implement conditions of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and prevent extinctions. This act is administered by USFWS, who are charged

with protecting terrestrial and freshwater species, and NMFS, who are responsible for marine organisms.

Under the ESA, species at risk of extinction are listed as threatened or endangered. The ESA protects these

listed species by prohibiting the take* of animals and the interstate and international trade of plants and

animals without a permit. These permits are typically issued for scientific and conservation purposes. (*Take is

defined as to “harass, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct.”)

Currently, approximately 2,300 species are listed as threatened or endangered, including 675 species that are

only found outside of the US and its waters. This list includes over 159 marine species, ~94 of which can be

found in US waters. There are 25 coral species listed: 22 species designated as threatened and three as

endangered. Three of these threatened coral species can be found on Guam’s reefs: Acropora globiceps,

Acropora retusa (unconfirmed), and Seriatopora aculeata. Listings for Guam also include the green sea turtle,

Chelonia mydas (endangered); hawksbill sea turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata (endangered); oceanic whitetip

shark, Carcharhinus longimanus (threatened); and scalloped hammerhead shark, Sphyrna lewini (threatened).

For more information: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa, https://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-

policies, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#invertebrates,

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/conservation/states/guam.htm

https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa

https://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies


http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm%23invertebrates



December 2018

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), 1976:

The MSA, administered by NMFS, is the principal legislation regulating management of marine fisheries in

federal waters within 200 nautical miles of the coast. The main goals of this law are to prevent overfishing;

restore overfished populations; build the long-term social and economic benefits of fisheries; and ensure

availability of safe, sustainable seafood. The MSA also established eight regional fishery management councils

charged with creating fishery management plans. Guam is part of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery

Management Council.

Under the MSA, stock assessments are conducted to determine the status of a fish stock and whether it is

overfished. According to these assessments, each fishery management council sets catch limits for target

species. As a fishery nears or exceeds its catch limit, the council applies accountability measures such as size

and trip limits, seasonal closures, and gear restrictions to prevent overfishing.

In 1996, the MSA was amended to include a provision for identifying and describing “essential fish habitat”

(EFH) in management plans produced by regional councils. EFH is defined as “waters and substrate necessary

to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” Federal agencies must consult with NMFS on

any actions or proposed actions “that may adversely affect EFH,” which will be followed by recommendations

from NMFS to prevent, reduce, or mitigate any damages to EFH areas. Guam’s EFH areas can be viewed here:

http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/index.html

For more information: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/laws_policies/msa

Legislation designed to reduce and address impacts

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 1976:

RCRA, administered by the EPA, is the primary federal legislation the regulations the disposal and clean-up of

solid and hazardous wastes. RCRA focuses on prevention, rather than clean-up. Under RCRA, the EPA has

established regulations for the design and operation of landfills and a “cradle to grave” approach for controlling

the handling of hazardous materials.

RCRA is primarily implemented and enforced by state agencies, as most states have regulations as strict or

stricter than those outlined in RCRA, but the EPA can enforce RCRA through several mechanisms, including

administrative actions, civil judicial actions, and criminal actions.

Facilities on Guam regulated by RCRA can be found here:

https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryID=142598

For more information: https://www.epa.gov/rcra/resource-conservation-and-recovery-act-rcra-overview,

https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/rcra-corrective-action-enforcement-actions

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 1980:

CERCLA established a federal “superfund” to restore abandoned hazardous waste sites and clean up releases

of pollutants and toxins into the environment. CERCLA authorizes the EPA to hold responsible parties liable for

their actions and associated clean up.

There are two Superfund sites on Guam: Andersen Air Force Base (long-term clean-up of hazardous substances,

including operational solvents, to protect the underlying aquifer) and the Ordot Landfill (clean-up of pollutants

entering the Lonfit River).

For more information: https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-comprehensive-environmental-

response-compensation-and-liability-act, https://www.epa.gov/superfund/search-superfund-sites-where-

you-live


http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/laws_policies/msa


https://www.epa.gov/rcra/resource-conservation-and-recovery-act-rcra-overview


https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-comprehensive-environmental-response-compensation-and-liability-act


https://www.epa.gov/superfund/search-superfund-sites-where-you-live



December 2018

Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990:

OPA, administered by the EPA, was passed to

prevent and address the impacts of oil spills.

OPA created a framework for determining

responsible parties and their financial liability,

established a fund for the clean-up of spills if the

responsible party is unwilling or unable to pay,

and requires vessels and oil storage facilities to

submit plans for possible spills. NOAA is

required to develop regulations for natural

resource damage assessments (NRDA) following

oil spills.

OPA requires the responsible party to pay for all

damages, including damage to natural

resources, if there is an oil spill or “substantial

threat of discharge of oil.” Damages resulting

from salvage and clean-up efforts can also be

charged to the responsible party. OPA is not

activated if the ship remains floating after the

grounding and there is no reasonable concern

about a potential discharge.

For more information: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/oil-pollution-act-opa-and-federal-facilities,

https://darrp.noaa.gov/oil-pollution-act-opa-1990

Overview of selected local policies and plans relevant to coral reef protection and management

Executive Order (EO) 89-31, 1989 – Adoption of the Recreational Water Use Management Plan (RWUMP) for the

waters of Guam:

In 1989, Governor Joseph Ada signed EO 89-31 to adopt the Guam RWUMP to regulate use of mechanized

recreational watercraft in Guam’s nearshore waters to reduce user conflicts, address safety concerns, and

protect marine environments.

The EO states that the RWUMP applies to all marine areas from the mean high water line to the outer reef edge.

The use of mechanized watercraft and sports equipment are authorized only in areas specified in the RWUMP.

Guam’s Coral Reef Local Action Strategies (LAS)

EO 97-10, 1997 – Adoption of the Guam Coral Reef Initiative (GCRI):

In 1997, Governor Carl Gutierrez signed EO 97-10, which created the GCRI and established the GCRI

Coordinating Committee (CRICC) and the GCRI Policy Advisory Committee (CRIPAC). The GCRI’s vision is to

develop a comprehensive program for the conservation and effective management of Guam’s coral reef

ecosystems through sustainable use and wise preservation. The vision relies on four strategies: building

partnerships, coordinating activities, integrating all critical ecosystem components and linkages, and building

local capacity through education, training, and infrastructure development.

EO 97-10 is superseded by EO 12-05, which updated the membership and duties of the CRICC and CRIPAC.

https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/oil-pollution-act-opa-and-federal-facilities



December 2018

EO 12-05, 2012 – Adoption of the GCRI to establish a policy development mechanism for the protection of Guam’s

coral reefs:

In 2012, Governor Edward Calvo signed EO 12-05, superseding EO 97-10. The EO describes the continued reef

decline that has occurred since 1997 and changes in coral reef conservation strategies.

The EO updates CRICC membership to consist of: the Governor’s Point of Contact to NOAA on coral reef issues;

the Directors of DOAG, BSP, Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), and the Guam Economic Development

Authority (or designees) (GEDA); Administrator of GEPA (or designee); Presidents of the Department of

Chamorro Affairs and the University of Guam (or designees); and the General Manager of GVB. The Governor’s

Point of Contact serves as the chairperson for the CRICC. The CRICC serves to: develop, update, and monitor

Guam’s LAS; utilize the LAS to develop prioritized lists of coral reef issues; determine funding priorities and

coordinate applications for federal grant money for coral reef projects; incorporate input from the CRIPAC into

the LAS; provide advice to the Governor and local agencies; and provide quarterly reports to the Governor on

the status of coral reef issues, funding, and priorities.

The EO updates CRIPAC membership to consist of: the Governor’s Point of Contact; Governor-appointed

representatives of academia, commercial fisheries, recreational fisheries, maritime industry, maritime

recreation, a traditional/indigenous CHamoru organization with an emphasis on fishing, and an environmental

NGO; and one community representative with coral reef interests. The Governor’s Point of Contact serves as

the chairperson for the CRIPAC. The CRIPAC serves to provide the CRICC with input and recommendations

related to the LAS; concerns and recommendations relevant to coral reefs; reviews of current and potential

future coral reef policies, regulations, etc.; and minute meetings and other reports.

Development of Guam’s LAS:

In August 2002, the CRICC began to identify the primary threats facing Guam’s coral reefs with the goal of

prioritizing funding and management efforts. In 2003, the CRICC assigned local navigators to lead the efforts

and draft LAS for five priority areas: LBSP; overfishing; recreational misuse and overuse; lack of public

awareness; and climate change and coral disease. Guam’s LAS outline goals, objectives, and activities for each

of the five priority areas. The LAS were developed based on the goals of the US National Action Plan to Conserve

Coral Reefs (CRTF 2000).

Guam’s LAS working groups added project lists to the LAS documents in 2005; these lists were updated in 2013

(GCMP 2013). The five priority areas were updated to include: LBSP; fisheries management; recreational use

and misuse; climate change and reef resilience; and impacts of Department of Defense (DOD) expansion.

Guam’s coral reef management priorities, goals, objectives, and associated actions, as created through the LAS

process, were further refined in Guam’s 2010 Coral Reef Management Priorities (Territory of Guam and NOAA

CRCP 2010). This priority setting document was produced collaboratively by local government agencies, non-

governmental partners, and CRCP, in alignment with the CRCP Goals and Objectives for 2010-2015 (CRCP 2009).

Laws passed by the Guam Legislature

Public law (PL) 12-108, 1974 – Guam Territorial Seashore Protection Act of 1974:

PL 12-108 was passed by the 12th Guam Legislature in 1974 to establish the Guam Seashore Reserve and require

development of a Seashore Reserve Plan to maintain, restore, and enhance Guam’s nearshore environment.

Seashore reserve is defined as all land and water extending seaward to the 60 ft depth contour (10 fathoms),

including islands within the Government of Guam’s jurisdiction, and land extending inward from the mean high

water line on the horizontal plane for 10 m. The law establishes the Territorial Seashore Protection Commission

to implement the policy.

As of mid-2018, the Seashore Reserve Plan is still in draft form (see below).


December 2018

PL 24-21, 1997 – Establishment of fishing regulations and marine preserves (MPs):

PL 24-21 was passed to conserve nearshore fisheries and preserve traditional fishing practices. DOAG was given

the authority to regulate Guam’s fishery resources (both marine and freshwater), determine the need for MPs,

and manage these preserves.

This legislation contains definitions for many terms, including: aquatic animal, plant, and life, boundary marker,

commercial export and harvesting, harvest/take, locally-caught, marine animal, marine mammal, marine

preserve, pelagic fish, personal use, reef margin, shore, and waters of Guam. Fishing methods and gear are also

defined, such as bottomfishing, cast net (talaya), fish aggregating device (FAD), gill net (tekken), hook and line,

spear, spearfishing, and surround net.

PL 24-21 prohibits the take of marine mammals and the relocation or transplant of any aquatic life or substrate

from one area to another without a permit. The law also restricts certain fishing methods and gear.

PL 24-21 establishes five MPs, their boundaries, and allowable fishing methods and gear within each MP: Tumon

Bay MP, Piti Bomb Holes MP, Sasa Bay MP, Achang Reef Flat MP, and Pati Point MP. It defines the extent of

MPs relative to high tide marks and depth, establishes a requirement for boundary markers and publicly-

available maps, and defines types of fishing that are prohibited in all MPs.

This law also establishes varying restrictions (including size limits) and license requirements for personal take

and commercial harvest and export of marine invertebrates: Trochus snails (Tectus niloticus), giant clams

(Tridacna spp.), bear claw clams (Hippopus hippopus), other gastropods and bivalves, crabs and lobsters,

echinoderms (sea stars, sea cucumbers, and urchins), and other invertebrates.

The regulations for PL 24-21 are listed in the Guam Code Annotated (GCA) (Title 5: Government operations,

Division 6: Agriculture, Chapter 63: Fish, game, forestry, and conservation) and in the Guam Administrative

Rules and Regulations (GAR) (Title 9: Animal regulations, Division 2: Conservation, hunting, and fishing

regulations, Chapter 12: Fishing regulations). However, after compiler updates there are inaccuracies with the

regulations listed in the GAR, including incorrect boundaries for the MPs.

The GCA is available here: http://www.guamcourts.org/CompilerofLaws/gca.html

The GAR is available here: http://www.guamcourts.org/CompilerofLaws/gar.html

PL 27-87, 2004 – Creation of an eco-permitting system for marine preserves:

PL 27-87 authorizes DOAG-DAWR to regulate non-fishing activities in MPs through permitting, reviewing criteria

and standards for activities, and enforcement of these regulations by administering penalties for violations. The

permitting system is designed to maximize public use and access to natural resources while assessing potential

negative impacts on species or ecosystems.

In 2011, public input was gathered using the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) Model to inform regulations

needed to enforce PL 27-87. LAC management and implementation plans were produced with extensive

stakeholder input for the Tumon Bay MP and the Piti Bomb Holes MP.

As of mid-2018, there are no regulations for PL 27-87 and it has never been enforced.

http://www.guamcourts.org/CompilerofLaws/gca.html

http://www.guamcourts.org/CompilerofLaws/gar.html


December 2018

PL 28-107, 2005 – Updates and additions to definitions related to MPs and fishery regulations listed in GCA Title

5, Division 6, Chapter 63:

PL 28-107 amends or adds definitions for the following terms: altering, angling, aquatic life, coral, firearm, fish,

fish weir (main and auxiliary), game, juvenile goatfish, juvenile jacks, juvenile rabbitfish, mangroves, marine

preserve, resource, rock, sand, seagrass, snagging, take, traditional fishing methods (cast net, drag net/seine,

surround net, trap net, butterfly net), vehicle, vessel, and waters of Guam.

This law also adds new sections to Chapter 63 describing the purpose of the MPs, defining activities within MPs,

and requiring that CHamoru words for terms defined in this law be used in all Guam statutes and regulations.

PL 28-30, 2005 – Creation of a Civilian Volunteer Conservation Officer Reserve program:

PL 28-30 acknowledges the need for increased manpower for DOAG and establishes the Civilian Volunteer

Conservation Officer Reserve program to address this capacity gap by providing back-up manpower and better

protect Guam’s natural resources.

According to this law, DAWR is to recruit local volunteers for this program, provide basic training and supplies,

provide a monthly allowance for volunteers, and establish a training program for recruits, in collaboration with

the Civil Defense Office.

As of mid-2018, the Civilian Volunteer Conservation Officer Reserve program has not been established.

PL 29-127, 2008 – Addition of a new section to Chapter 63 of Title 5 of the Guam Code Annotated relative to

indigenous fishing rights:

PL 29-127 asserts that since Spanish colonization, the CHamoru people have been denied the right to practice

traditional fishing methods and that these traditional methods are still threatened by contemporary

conservation policies and restrictions. This law states that to address this historical inequity, the CHamoru

people should have special rights to fishing access and harvesting of marine life.

The law created the Indigenous Native Resources Task Force to collaborate with the Department of Agriculture

to develop rules and regulations for the law. The Task Force was unable to reach consensus and as of mid-2018,

there are no regulations to implement PL 29-127.

PL 33-144, 2016 – Guam Ocean and Fisheries Conservation Act of 2015:

This law establishes the Guam Ocean and Fisheries Management Council composed of nine voting members

appointed by the Governor to coordinate and promote activities related to the conservation and development

of Guam’s ocean, fisheries, and marine resources, including implementation of PL 29-127, development of

permit requirements for fishing, and advising the Governor and Legislature.

The council is composed of four community at large members, three members of key fishing organizations,

faculty member of UOG, and the director of DOAG.

The law also establishes the Guam Ocean and Fisheries Conservation and Development Fund for boating access,

research, pollution mitigation, cultural preservation, and other related activities.

• As of mid-2018, the Council members have not been appointed and the Council has not been convened.

PL 33-159, 2016 – Establishment of the Southern River Erosion Council and mandate for master plans to address

erosion in southern Guam:

PL 33-159 acknowledges that erosion threatens to diminish both public and private lands, impact jobs in the

agricultural and tourism sectors, decrease water quality, deter navigation of rivers, and damage nearshore

benthic ecosystems.

This law establishes the Southern River Erosion Council to identify erosion issues and recommend mitigation

strategies to address erosion along rivers in southern Guam. The Council includes representatives from DOAG,


December 2018

UOG, BSP, Guam Waterworks Authority (GWA), GEPA, Department of Public Works (DPW), Department of Land

Management (DLM), US Department of Agriculture (USDA), US Army Corps of Engineers, private landowners,

and mayors of the seven southern villages (Agat, Umatac, Inarajan, Santa Rita, Talofofo, Merizo, and Yona).

This law also mandates the development of a comprehensive master plan(s) for southern Guam to identify and

mitigate erosion problems according to the recommendations of the Southern River Erosion Council.

As of mid-2018, the Council has not been convened and the master plan(s) have not been developed.

PL 34-17, 2017 – Establishment of the Guam Council in Climate Change Preparedness and Resiliency:

PL 34-17 supports the Guam Climate Change Task Force and Climate Change Advisory Committee (established

by EO 15-08) by creating the Guam Council on Climate Change Preparedness and Resiliency (Guam C3PR) to

provide policy recommendations to the Legislature and address adverse impacts of climate change on Guam.

The members of Guam C3PR are the legislative chairperson with oversight over environment or his/her designee

(who will serve as chairperson of the C3PR); the President of UOG or his/her designee (who will serve as vice

chairperson); the legislative chairperson with oversight over appropriations or his/her designee; one majority

member of the Legislature appointed by the Speaker or his/her designee; one minority member of the

Legislature appointed by the Speaker; the chairperson of the Guam Climate Change Task Force; one member of

the Climate Chang Advisory Committee; the chairperson of the Consolidated Commission on Utilities or his/her

designee; the director of the UOG Center for Island Sustainability or his/her designee; and all other members

of the Legislature as ex-officio members.

PL 34-72, 2018 – Marine Conservation Act of 2018:

PL 34-72 states that the issues facing Guam’s coral reefs are too numerous and severe to be addressed by any

one Government of Guam agency, and thus a participatory community-based fisheries management approach

is necessary to properly manage and conserve these resources. The law defines community-based fisheries

management as “a system in which fishermen and their communities exercise primary responsibility for

stewardship and fisheries management, to include taking part in the decision-making on all aspects of fisheries

management, such as harvesting, access, compliance, research, and marketing.”

This law grants authority to the Director of DOAG, village mayors, and Municipal Planning Councils to establish

community-based fisheries managed areas and create fisheries management plans. The Directors of DOAG and

BSP are enlisted to provide technical guidance to the mayor and the Municipal Planning Council of Humatak to

establish Humatak Bay as a community-based fisheries management area and develop a community-based

management plan. The law states that the management plan should be finalized by January 2019.

This law does not alter any existing marine preserves on Guam.


December 2018

Proposed legislation

Bill No. 397-30, 2009 – Prohibition of SCUBA spearfishing:

A bill to ban SCUBA spearfishing was introduced to the 30th Legislature of Guam in 2009, but the bill did not

leave committee and was not passed. The bill noted continued decline of Guam’s fisheries, with particular

emphasis on two large-bodied, slow-growing herbivores, the bumphead parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum)

and humphead wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus).

SCUBA spearfishing is banned in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Pohnpei,

American Samoa, Independent Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, Solomon Islands, Maldives, Mauritius, Seychelles, and Kenya.

Bill No. 120-31, 2011 – Guam Coral Reef Protection Act:

The Guam Coral Reef Protection Act was proposed to the Legislature of Guam in 2011, but was not passed. This

bill included definitions for several terms, including aggravating circumstances, coral, coral reefs, damages,

hazardous material, pollutant and unpermitted release of pollutants, spill, and responsible party.

This bill was created to address the issue of vessel groundings and chemical spills or releases that impact, or

have potential to impact, Guam’s coral reefs. The bill was designed to identify the responsible party for an

impact and create a mechanism to recover damages from that responsible party. The bill also described civil

penalties for reef damage and included creation of a Coral Reef Restoration Fund.

This language of this bill was based on the Florida Coral Reef Protection Act, enacted in 2009. A similar bill in

CNMI has been passed by the Legislature as of mid-2018.

Local plans and strategies

Recreational Water Use Management Plan (RWUMP), 1989, updated in 1998:

The RWUMP was developed to reduce conflict between mechanized recreational watercraft, specifically jet

skis, and traditional fishers; address safety concerns; and reduce environmental impacts. The RWUMP was

adopted by EO 89-31 in 1989 (see above) and rules and regulations were approved in 1991. The RWUMP was

updated in 1998 to include regulation of dinner cruises in East Agana Bay. A 2010 update to the RWUMP was

drafted but not formally adopted.

The RWUMP applies from Oka Point in Tamuning to Tepungan Channel in Piti, encompassing the area between

the high tide mark and the reef crest. The RWUMP designates certain areas within Agana Bay where mechanized

recreational watercraft may be used inside the reef. Commercial operations within these areas require a permit

from the Department of Parks and Recreation. Mechanized recreational watercraft are also used in Cocos

Lagoon and Apra Harbor, but these areas are not included under the RWUMP.

Executive orders and laws relevant to the RWUMP: EO 90-08, EO 89-10, EO 89-31 (see above), EO 90-08, PL 20-

117, PL 23-78, PL 23-89, PL 24-74, PL 24-137, PL 24-218

Guam Seashore Reserve Plan, 2003, updated 2012 (draft):

The Guam Seashore Reserve Plan, which is mandated by PL 12-108 (see above), was drafted in 2003 and

updated in 2012; the document is still in draft form. The purpose of the plan is to preserve and protect the

seashore reserve area designated in PL 12-108 and provide guidance and permitting for development in these

coastal areas. The Guam Coastal Management Program is responsible for implementing the plan.

The draft plan recommends amending the boundaries of the seashore reserve described in PL 12-108 to include

all nearshore waters to the 300 ft depth contour (increased from 60 ft) and inland to 10 m on the horizontal

plane from the mean high water line (decreased from 100 m) or to the inland edge of the nearest public right

of way, whichever is closer.


December 2018

Areas of the seashore reserve are classified under two categories of protection, preservation (more restrictive)

and conservation. Areas designated under preservation include all marine preserves, sea turtle habitat and

nesting areas, mangrove forests, and unique coastal features and marine communities. All other areas within

the seashore reserve are classified as conservation. In both preservation and conservation areas, casual

recreational use is allowed without a permit.

The plan also establishes the Seashore Reserve Fund, which is supported by fees and fines related to the plan

and used to support implementation and administration of the plan.

The following master plans (Table 1) and management plans (Table 2) may provide useful information for coral reef

managers on Guam.

Table 1. Master plans for the Territory of Guam

Title Date

published Notes

Territory of Guam Master Plan 1966 Updated in 1972

Storm Water Drainage Master Plan for Tamuning-Dededo,

Agana, Asan-Piti, Merizo, and Agat-Santa Rita Aug. 1970

Guam Comprehensive Development Plan Sept. 1978

Guam Territorial Seashore Park Plan Jan. 1979

Tumon Bay Master Plan 1984 Not implemented

Southern Guam Flood Control Master Plan Dec. 1996

Master Plan for Park and Conservation Land April 1999

Hagatna Master Plan Sept. 2005 Updated in April 2013

Guam 2020 Highway Master Plan Oct. 2005

Water Resources Master Plan Oct. 2006 Update in progress

since 2016

North and Central Guam Land Use Plan Sept. 2009

Village Streets Master Plan Nov. 2009

Storm Water Drainage Master Plan Dec. 2010

Table 2. Management plans for the Territory of Guam

Title Date

published Notes

Agana Marina Development Plan 1976

Community Design Plans for Guam: 1977-2000 Oct. 1977

Guam Fisheries Development and Management Plan 1980

Overall Economic Development Plan for Guam, 1989-1993 1988

Recreational Water Use Management Plan (RWUMP) 1989

Updated in 1998;

update in 2010 not

formalized

Clean Water Action Plan for Guam Unified Watershed

Assessment Sept. 1998

Guam Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan 2006

Guam Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Nov. 2006

Natural Resources Strategy, 2012 Aug. 2008


December 2018

Conservation Action Plan for Piti Bomb Holes Marine

Preserve and Adjacent Watershed Aug. 2009 Draft, not finalized

Guam Seashore Reserve Plan Aug. 2012 Draft, not finalized

Guam Waterworks Authority Comprehensive

Management Plan 2013

Guam Zero Waste Plan June 2013

Guam Energy Action Plan July 2013

Guam Tourism 2020 Plan 2014

Guam Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2014

Guam Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2014

Guam Marine Biosecurity Action Plan Sept. 2014

Merizo Community-based Management Plan 2015

Guam State Wildlife Action Plan Sept. 2015

Marine Conservation Plan 2017

Guam Invasive Species Management Plan, 2013-2017 2017 Interim plan

Guam Coral Bleaching Response Plan April 2017

Manell-Geus Habitat Focus Area Implementation Plan Aug. 2017

Guam Crown of Thorns Sea Star Outbreak Response Plan Dec. 2017

Watershed Management Plan for Manell and Geus

Watersheds June 2018

Micronesia Challenge

The Micronesia Challenge, which began in 2006, is an agreement between

the Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Palau,

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam to protect the

natural resources of Micronesia, and thus the Micronesian way of life, by

effectively conserving at least 20% of forest and 30% of nearshore marine

resources across the region by 2020 (Declaration of Commitment: The Micronesia Challenge 2006). The Micronesia

Challenge encompasses 6.7 km2, over 5% of the Pacific Ocean, and more than 2,000 islands inhabited by half a

million people who speak 12 unique languages; this area is home to 85 bird species, 1,400 plants, 1,300 reef fishes,

and almost 500 corals, representing greater than 60% of the world’s known coral species (The Nature Conservancy

(TNC) 2017).

Guam’s existing marine preserves, coupled with federal properties (e.g. War in the Pacific National Historical Park,

Guam National Wildlife Refuge, Haputo and Orote Ecological Reserve Areas), cover 15.5% of Guam’s nearshore

marine resources, just over half of the amount required to fulfill the Micronesia Challenge commitment (Micronesia

Challenge Steering Committee 2011). However, increasing the area covered by marine preserves is not a priority

for Guam or favored by local communities, so Guam plans to meet the Micronesia Challenge goal by reducing stress

on coral reefs by increasing watershed management, improving coastal infrastructure, and more effectively

managing and enforcing existing marine preserves (Micronesia Challenge Steering Committee 2011).


December 2018

Development of the GRRS

Survey on Guam’s coral reef management efforts and priorities (October 2017)

Local natural resource managers and other relevant stakeholders completed an online survey on Guam’s coral reef

management efforts and priorities in October 2017. The results of the survey informed development of the GRRS

and contents of the Strategizing for Reef Resilience Workshop (Nov. 2017). A total of 29 respondents representing

15 entities completed the survey: three local agencies (BSP, GEPA, DAWR); four federal agencies (NOAA, USFWS,

NPS, DOD-NAVFAC); four local educational institutions/programs (Guam Community College (GCC), UOGML, UOG-

CIS, UOG-Sea Grant Program); two non-governmental organizations (TNC, Ayuda Foundation), one local business

(Micronesian Divers Association (MDA)); and one intergovernmental program (Micronesia Challenge). Respondents

have worked for an average of 15 years in coral reef management or research, or in a related field that depends on

coral reef ecosystems. Respondents answered eight questions about the threats facing Guam’s coral reef

ecosystems; the most important coral reef management priorities for the next five years; the most and least

successful aspects of reef management efforts on Guam; and the greatest knowledge and capacity gaps limiting

Guam’s ability to understand and manage its coral reef resources. Full results of the survey (including questions and

data analysis methods) are described in Appendix I.

Key takeaways from the survey results:

Twenty-seven out of 29 respondents (93%) identified ocean warming/coral bleaching as one of the three most

important threats to Guam’s coral reef ecosystems; twenty respondents identified this as the most important

threat. Sedimentation and fishing pressure were also listed as one of the three most important threats by a

majority of respondents.

Nineteen out of 29 respondents (66%) identified “Reduce impacts of climate change by enhancing resilience”

as the first or second most important priority for coral reef management; fourteen respondents identified this

as the #1 most important priority. “Reduce impacts of LBSP” was also listed as the first or second most

important priority for coral reef management by a majority of respondents.

Strategizing for Reef Resilience Workshop (November 2017)

The Strategizing for Reef Resilience Workshop was held on November 8, 2017 in the Hall of Governors at the

Governor’s Complex, Adelup. The workshop was guided by five objectives:

1. Gain a shared understanding of the state of Guam’s coral reef ecosystems, reasons for decline, and threats

facing local coral reefs.

2. Update coral reef management priorities, goals, objectives, and actions to focus on enhancing the resilience of

Guam’s coral reef ecosystems.

3. Gather input to shape the GRRS.

4. Identify challenges to implementing the GRRS and brainstorm approaches to overcome these challenges.

5. Assign tasks for GRRS finalization and implementation.

The workshop was attended by thirty-eight participants representing four Government of Guam agencies and

programs (BSP, GCMP, DOAG, GVB); four federal government entities (NOAA, NPS, USFWS, DOD-NAVFAC); three

programs from the University of Guam (UOGML, CIS, Sea Grant Program); two non-governmental organizations

(Humatak Community Foundation and TNC); two businesses (Fish Eye Marine Park and UWW); and one private

citizen. Names and affiliations of all workshops attendees are listed in Appendix II.


December 2018

The workshop was led by Whitney Hoot, BSP. Hoot and Valerie Brown (NOAA) delivered presentations on the state

of Guam’s coral reefs; an introduction to coral reef resilience; an overview of the GRRS, adaptive management, and

climate-smart design; a review of Guam’s existing management priorities and goals; results from a survey on Guam’s

coral reef management efforts; and recommendations for revisions to existing priorities and goals. Participants

worked in small groups to review and revise coral reef management priorities, goals, objectives and actions;

brainstorm approaches to improve research and monitoring efforts; and identify anticipated challenges to

implementing the GRRS and strategies to overcome these challenges (Table 3).

Table 3. A list of potential challenges to implementing the GRRS and suggested strategies for overcoming these

challenges, developed during the Strategizing for Reef Resilience Workshop

Anticipated challenges to GRRS

implementation Suggested strategies

Community resistance and apathy

Increase presence at festivals and events Conduct more outreach and education with students Provide additional service learning opportunities Manage expectations of community involvement Incentivize community participation

Lack of support from executive and

legislative branches Identify a “policy champion” Create a mechanism to provide guidance to leaders

Lack of buy-in from tourism industry

Make coral reef management profitable Develop an “ocean pledge” like the Håfa Adai Pledge Give businesses ownership over programs (e.g. Adopt A Reef) Provide recognition for participating businesses

Lack of funding and inefficient use of funds Improve grants administration Hold agencies accountable for fulfilling grant requirements Address issues with procurement

Unengaged and/or obstructionist

stakeholders Reach out to stakeholders – give presentations at their offices Change style and content of messaging if needed

Uncertainty surrounding climate change

impacts

Down-scale climate models to provide projections at scales relevant to local management interventions Incorporate uncertainty into management planning

Insufficient enforcement of natural resource

regulations

Support funding and implementation of the Civilian Volunteer

Conservation Officer Reserve program


December 2018

Climate-smart Design for Coral Reef Management Workshop (September 2018)

The Climate-smart Design for Coral Reef Management Workshop was held on September 24 & 25, 2018 at the

Pacific Star Resort and Spa in Tumon. The intended outcomes of the workshop were:

Increased understanding among local coral reef managers, scientists, and other stakeholders of:

o Climate change adaptation and climate-smart design principles

o Predicted future climate change impacts, vulnerabilities, and uncertainties

o Predicted impacts of climate change on both local stressors and the effectiveness of management

actions

Refined climate-smart coral reef management outcomes, goals, objectives, and actions for Guam, to be

included in the Guam Reef Resilience Strategy

The workshop was attended by twenty-six participants representing three Government of Guam agencies (BSP,

GEPA, DOAG-DAWR); two federal government agencies (NOAA, NPS); the University of Guam Marine Laboratory;

and Underwater World. Names and affiliations of all workshops attendees are listed in Appendix III. The workshop

was coordinated by BSP and UOG and facilitated by Dr. Kitty Courtney from Tetra Tech, Inc. (Honolulu, HI).

This training workshop was based on the Adaptation Design Tool (ADT) developed under the Corals and Climate

Adaptation Planning (CCAP) project (Parker et al. 2017). The ADT was created with funding from the US

Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program, and Department of the Interior’s Office

of Insular Affairs. The ADT was produced to guide coral reef managers in integrating climate-smart design into plans,

projects, and programs related to coral reef management.

The overarching goal of the workshop was to improve the effectiveness of coral reef management efforts on Guam

and thus better protect coral reef resources. Attendees received training on use of the ADT and increased capacity

to integrate climate-smart design into existing and future projects and programs related to coral reef management.

During the workshop, participants learned about principles of climate-smart planning and discussed climate change

impacts and vulnerabilities related to Guam’s coral reef resources and human communities, based on a vulnerability

assessment developed for the workshop. The vulnerability assessment (Appendix IV) describes how climate change

indicators are predicted to impact environmental conditions and affect Guam’s natural and social resources, based

on both climate science and community knowledge. Participants applied their training and knowledge to develop

and refine the coral reef management outcomes, goals, objectives, and actions within the GRRS. The workshop

focused on activities within Guam’s three priority sites: Manell-Geus watershed (and Achang Reef Flat Marine

Preserve); Piti-Asan watershed (and Piti Bomb Holes Marine Preserve); and Tumon Bay watershed/Yigo-Tumon

sub-basin of the Northern Guam Lens Aquifer (and Tumon Bay Marine Preserve).

Based on a post-workshop evaluation survey, 79% of participants stated that their knowledge of climate-smart

design principles for coral reef management increased after completing the workshop and 86% of participants

reported that they expect to use what they learned during the workshop in the future.


December 2018

Coral reef management outcomes, goals, objectives, and actions

The coral reef management outcomes, goals, objectives, and actions described in this section were adapted from

the Guam Local Action Strategies (LAS) and revised during the Strategizing for Reef Resilience Workshop in 2017,

the Climate-smart Design for Coral Reef Management Workshop in 2018, and through further engagement with

key stakeholders. These outcomes, goals, objectives, and actions reflect the priorities of coral reef management

efforts on Guam from 2019 to 2025 and are aligned with the 2018 NOAA CRCP Strategic Plan. Guam’s five desired

outcomes for coral reef management (replacing “priorities” from the LAS) are: (F) Effective fisheries management;

(P) Decreased land-based sources of pollution (LBSP); (RR) Increased reef response and restoration; (RU) Sustainable

recreational use and tourism; and (H) Human community resilience and climate change adaptation.

Guam’s coral reef managers have defined these terms as follows:

Outcome: A key focus area for coral reef management

Goal: The highest-level result that Guam aims to achieve by 2025

Objective: An environmental, social, or institutional target that Guam must achieve to reach a goal

Action: A specific project, technique, or procedure designed to realize an objective

To increase the efficacy of Guam’s coral reef management efforts and maximize the utility of limited resources,

many of the objectives and actions included in the GRRS are focused on prioritized key fisheries taxa and sites

(target watersheds, priority marine preserves, and restoration areas), which are listed in Appendix V.

OUTCOME F: Effective fisheries management

Goal: Enhance the resilience of Guam’s coral reef ecosystems through effective fisheries management that improves

the condition of reef fish communities and protects the sustainability of fisheries for current and future generations.

Objectives and actions:

1. Improve community engagement in science-based fisheries management by 2022.

1.1. Strategically engage fishers and the fishing community through monthly community meetings to exchange

information, discuss fisheries management strategies, and produce stakeholder-driven solutions to

fisheries challenges by 2019.

1.2. Evaluate the Guam fishing community to inform targeted engagement efforts, to include assessment of

relevant methods, organizations, and languages, by 2019.

1.3. Engage the fishing community in climate change impact monitoring through the Eyes of the Reef Marianas

program by 2019.

1.4. Establish a fishery policy advisory group to provide input on fisheries regulations by 2020.

https://coralreef.noaa.gov/aboutcrcp/news/featuredstories/nov18/welcome.html


December 2018

1.5. Develop guidance on sustainable seafood choices for Guam by 2020.

1.6. Implement targeted outreach on sustainable seafood choices to key reef fish consumers (e.g. hotels and

restaurants) by 2021.

1.7. Create and implement an outreach program on sustainable seafood choices for the general public by 2022.

2. Conduct management-driven monitoring and research to assess the status of reef fish communities, habitats,

and target marine species; the impacts of climate change on fisheries; and the effectiveness of management.

2.1. By 2019, the Effective Fisheries Management Working Group will develop standardized definitions for key

terms: target fish stocks, food fish, reef fish, pelagic fish, freshwater fish, marine invertebrates, etc.

2.2. By 2020, synthesize existing fisheries data from research and monitoring efforts to establish a baseline

dataset for Guam describing current fish community status, resilience information, and potential climate

vulnerability for key reef fish species, which will be used to inform and improve management and

enforcement by local agencies and federal partners.

2.3. By 2020, assess commonly used fishing techniques to determine ecological impacts, number of users, and

cultural importance of traditional fishing methods and quantify and characterize commercial fishing

efforts.

2.4. Conduct research to better understand fish population connectivity around Guam to identify key source

populations, with a special focus on Guam’s marine preserves; methods may include fish tagging/tracking,

ocean current characterization and modeling, etc.

2.5. By 2021, synthesize existing data and collect new data as needed to identify vulnerable habitats for key

reef fish taxa to prioritize fish habitat restoration efforts.

3. Improve enforcement of Guam’s existing fishery management statutes and regulations by 2021.

3.1. Establish an operations budget for conservation officers within the Guam Department of Agriculture by

the end of 2019.

3.2. Provide support for the Conservation Officer Reserve Program, which requires sustainable funding for

stipends and equipment, by the end of 2019.

3.3. Establish a conservation enforcement hotline by 2019.

3.4. Improve partnerships with federal agencies, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and Naval Facilities Engineering Command, to increase

effectiveness of the management of marine resources in federally-controlled areas.

3.5. Support decriminalization of Title 5 and implementation of the Citation Program for the Law Enforcement

Section of the Guam Department of Agriculture.

3.6. Provide legal assistance to implement the actions within objective F4 and, additionally, support

implementation of a citation program with resulting fines funding enforcement.

3.7. Strengthen partnerships with businesses, community partners, and other stakeholders to improve

reporting by 2020.

3.8. Improve enforcement of Guam’s marine preserves and compliance with new and existing laws and

regulations by 2021.

4. Develop and implement new policies to sustainably manage Guam’s fisheries by 2021.

4.1. Review existing policies and regulations to identify implementation and policy gaps by 2019.

4.2. Identify vulnerable and/or ecologically important species that may need specific regulations to build

resilience by 2020.


December 2018

4.3. By 2020, engage stakeholder groups, e.g. WestPac and the Fishermen’s Cooperative Association, to assess

the impact of scuba spear fishing on reef fish communities and evaluate the need for regulation of scuba

spear fishing on Guam’s reefs.

4.4. By 2020, assess the potential effectiveness of and support for a fishing licensing and/or permitting system

for recreational and/or commercial fishing activities on Guam’s coral reefs, including socioeconomic

evaluation of potential license structures.

4.5. Update policies and regulations related to the harvest of fish and marine invertebrates to ensure

sustainable harvest of these taxa, including species-specific regulations and moratoria if needed, by 2021.

OUTCOME P: Decreased land-based sources of pollution (LBSP)

Goal: Enhance the resilience of Guam’s coral reef ecosystems by reducing the introduction of sediment, nutrients,

and pollution from coastal development, fires, land-based recreational users, and agriculture in Guam’s watersheds.


1. Develop programs to engage the public, businesses, and decision makers in reducing LBSP and remove barriers

to sustainable practices.

1.1. Encourage use of onsite best management practices, such as green infrastructure technology, at

commercial and residential sites.

1.2. Develop incentives for use of pre- and post-construction best management practices and regular

maintenance of practices to reduce LBSP.

1.3. Continue to support initiatives designed to increase awareness of the impacts of arson on coral reefs.

2. Implement scaled-up watershed restoration projects and application of best management practices, focusing

on Guam’s three target watersheds: Manell-Geus watershed; Piti-Asan watershed; and Tumon Bay

watershed/Yigo-Tumon sub-basin of the Northern Guam Lens Aquifer.

2.1. Continue funding the Coral Reef Watershed Coordinator position to coordinate and implement watershed

management and restoration efforts on Guam.

2.2. Build capacity and provide tools to support the establishment of a community-based organization focused

on watershed restoration initiatives by 2022.

2.3. Increase the number of acres of land actively managed for conservation by the Government of Guam,

federal agencies, and private landowners by 20% by 2024.

2.4. Replant fire-prone grassland areas with trees and/or preferred vegetation (e.g. nitrogen fixing species and

native species).

2.5. Install and maintain firebreaks at sites where watershed restoration projects are conducted.

3. Conduct management-driven research and develop new tools for watershed restoration and best management

practices for tropical coastal ecosystems.

3.1. Improve techniques and evaluation methods to guide siting for low-tech community-based restoration

projects to maximize return on investment.

3.2. Monitor existing watershed restoration sites over longer periods of time and collect data on the impacts

of watershed restoration efforts on coral reef ecosystem health.

3.3. Ensure that watershed restoration project design is climate smart, e.g. by considering not only current

precipitation patterns but also how these patterns may shift due to climate change.


December 2018

4. Improve regulations related to LBSP reduction and strengthen implementation and enforcement of storm water

regulations and plans by 2025.

4.1. Document and assess existing storm water management systems on Guam and develop recommendations

for the addition of new or updated systems to improve water quality by 2020.

4.2. By 2021, develop and strengthen the authority of the Guam Environmental Protection Agency to cite

owners of buildings and other facilities using inadequate storm water management.

4.3. Monitor and enforce required storm water management systems on Guam, while ensuring that systems

are updated and maintained as needed to comply with regulations.

4.4. Increase enforcement for arson and other illegal activities related to LBSP by 2022, including hiring of at

least two additional foresters for Wildland Fire Investigations.

4.5. Develop and implement a Storm Water Management Master Plan for Guam, including climate-smart

design considerations, by 2024.

5. Establish two “eco-friendly” off-roading sites by applying best management practices and sediment control

systems at existing sites by 2021 in collaboration with the off-roading community and local businesses.

5.1. Conduct an outreach and education campaign related to raising awareness of impacts of off-roading on

Guam’s terrestrial and marine resources by 2019.

5.2. By the end of 2019, hold meetings with key stakeholders (e.g. land owners, natural resource management

agencies, and the off-roading community) to discuss potential off-roading sites (including issues of access)

to be targeted for best management practices and sediment control systems.

5.3. By mid-2020, collaborate with stakeholders to design eco-friendly off-roading areas at two sites on Guam.

5.4. By the end of 2021, establish eco-friendly trails at two sites using erosion and sediment control best

management practices and implement a long-term maintenance and enforcement plan with consideration

of climate-smart design principles.

6. Reduce erosion in the Piti-Asan watershed, a priority site, and decrease the amount of sediment entering near-

shore waters by at least 10% by 2025.

6.1. Collect and analyze data on water quality parameters (e.g. concentrations of dissolved and particulate

nutrients, turbidity/suspended solids, and/or chlorophyll a) to assess the impacts of erosion, runoff, and

sedimentation in the nearshore marine waters of the Piti-Asan watershed by the end of 2020.

6.2. Install sediment catchment systems in badland areas within the Piti-Asan watershed by 2021 with

consideration of future climate change impacts, including changing precipitation and storm patterns.

6.3. With community participation, begin to conduct re-vegetation projects within badland areas in the Piti-

Asan watershed by 2022.

7. By 2025, improve storm water management in Tumon Bay, a priority site, by reducing the number of flood

events that occur after heavy precipitation and improving water quality within the Tumon Bay Marine Preserve.

7.1. Collect and analyze data on water quality parameters (e.g. concentrations of dissolved and particulate

nutrients, turbidity/suspended solids, and/or chlorophyll a) to assess the impacts of erosion, runoff, and

sedimentation in the nearshore marine waters of Tumon Bay by the end of 2020.

7.2. Map impervious surfaces in Tumon Bay and assess their potential contributions to runoff and impacts on

coral reef health in the Tumon Bay Marine Preserve by 2020.

7.3. Conduct outreach and education efforts related to storm water impacts and management at at least two

schools, two hotels, and two shopping centers in the Tumon Bay area by the end of 2020.

7.4. Improve maintenance of existing storm water management systems in Tumon Bay and implement a

consistent schedule for maintenance by the end of 2021.


December 2018

7.5. With community participation, install green infrastructure – e.g. rain gardens and green roofs – at at least

one school, one hotel, and one shopping center in the Tumon area by the end of 2022.

7.6. By 2025, increase the amount of permeable surface area in Tumon by at least 10%.

OUTCOME RR: Increased reef response and restoration

Goal: Enhance the resilience of Guam’s coral reef ecosystems by responding rapidly and effectively to acute impacts

and restoring coral reef habitats to preserve the viability of coral communities.


1. Increase the capacity of the Guam Coral Reef Response Team to rapidly respond to acute impacts affecting

Guam’s coral reefs (e.g. coral bleaching events; vessel groundings and spills; and outbreaks of disease, COTS,

and nuisance and invasive species).

1.1. Continue funding the Coral Reef Resilience Coordinator position to coordinate the Response Team,

conduct response activities, and support restoration efforts.

1.2. Improve the efficiency of resource mobilization during and following acute impacts.

1.3. Support annual training activities for members of the Response Team.

1.4. Develop and test approaches for mitigation, rehabilitation, and restoration after acute impacts such as

bleaching events, vessel groundings, and severe storms.

1.5. Increase participation of relevant natural resources agencies in response activities.

1.6. Develop response plans to address vessel groundings, oil and chemical spills, coral disease outbreaks, and

outbreaks of nuisance and invasive species as needed.

1.7. Produce a report on the history of acute impacts on Guam’s reefs to create a timeline of events, build

institutional knowledge, learn from past response activities, and determine existing knowledge gaps.

1.8. Conduct research on the drivers of coral bleaching and disease-related coral mortality to better understand

the relative resilience of Guam’s coral species and reef sites.

1.9. Quantify the extent of nuisance and invasive species impacting Guam’s reefs and investigate and test

management approaches to address these impacts.

2. Adopt legislation to hold responsible parties accountable for physical damage (e.g. vessel groundings) and spills

that impact coral reef health by 2021.

2.1. Provide legal assistance for policy development and identify links between stakeholder groups and

members of the legislature, and the judicial branch by 2019.

2.2. Engage with decision makers to revisit the Coral Reef Protection Act and its feasibility for reintroduction

by the end of 2019.

2.3. By 2020, conduct a study to reassess the value of Guam’s coral reefs, which was last conducted in 2007.

2.4. Develop a sustainable financing mechanism to fund emergency reef restoration after vessel groundings,

impacts from severe weather events, and other sources of acute physical damage to reefs by 2021.

3. Develop and implement a science-based, community-driven Coral Reef Restoration Plan to restore viable coral

communities on Guam’s reefs by 2020.

3.1. Establish the Guam Reef Restoration and Intervention Partnership (GRRIP), which should be convened

regularly and include participation from all relevant stakeholders.


December 2018

3.2. By mid-2019, determine the necessary steps for development of a Reef Restoration Plan, including

identification of key stakeholders; assessment of any legislation needed for implementation; review of

techniques and methods that could be used on Guam; potential funding sources; evaluation of capacity

gaps; and identification of links between economic sustainability and reef health.

3.3. By the end of 2019, conduct a public outreach and education campaign to generate interest in coral reef

restoration and increase community participation in restoration efforts.

3.4. Finalize the Coral Reef Restoration Plan by May 2020 and commence implementation by the end of 2020.

3.5. Hire a full time Coral Reef Restoration Coordinator at a Government of Guam Agency by 2020.

3.6. Up-scale current reef restoration efforts via sexual and asexual propagation while incorporating novel

technologies (e.g. stress-hardening of corals; manipulation of symbiotic partnerships; assisted migration

and gene flow; larval propagation techniques) to maximize efficiency and ensure that restored coral

populations are resilient to impacts such as coral bleaching, disease, ocean acidification, and predation by

COTS and other nuisance species, e.g. Drupella cornus.

3.7. Incorporate alternative approaches to restoring the viability of coral communities (e.g. through seagrass

and mangrove restoration; herbivore propagation and replenishment; and removal of invasive and/or

nuisance species, such as Chaetomorpha spp., COTS, Drupella cornus, and Coralliophila spp.) into Guam’s

reef restoration activities.

3.8. By 2021, assess genotypes of coral colonies within Guam's in situ coral nurseries and study population

genetics of donor sites to better understand coral resilience to stressors and increase success of

restoration activities.

3.9. Conduct studies to improve understanding of taxonomy of Guam’s corals and identify endemic species

and/or sub-populations, then assess relative risk of extirpation/extinction of local coral species due to

climate change to support management and/or restoration efforts designed to reduce biodiversity loss.

4. Enhance the mid-water ocean-based coral nursery in the Piti Bomb Holes Marine Preserve by expanding

structural capacity to grow fragments and sexual recruits, increasing the number of species propagated, and

improving coral survivorship by 2025.

4.1. Double the capacity of the nursery by adding three additional frames, two to hold coral fragments and one

to house settlement tiles with recruits, by 2022.

4.2. Propagate the nursery with 1,000 additional fragments and at least five new species (from at least two

populations per species to facilitate future spawning efforts, when possible), including species with

massive morphologies, by 2022.

4.3. Conduct research on spawning times of at least three target coral species by 2022.

4.4. Improve survival of fragments and sexual recruits housed in the nursery through more frequent

maintenance and improved propagation methods by 2025.

5. Establish two community-based coral outplanting sites in Tepungan Bay within the Piti Bomb Holes Marine

Preserve by 2021.

5.1. Host stakeholder meetings to garner community feedback on site selection for outplant sites in Tepungan

Bay by the end of 2019.

5.2. Develop protocols and training programs for community outplanting methods, site maintenance, and

outplant monitoring by mid-2020.

5.3. Outplant coral fragments and/or sexual recruits with community participation at at least two sites in the

Piti Bomb Holes Marine Preserve by the end of 2021 and implement regular monitoring and maintenance

of outplant plots by community members.


December 2018

6. Plan and implement coral outplanting in the Tumon Bay Marine Preserve by 2021.

6.1. Assess the health and extent of remaining staghorn patches in the Tumon Bay Marine Preserve by 2020.

6.2. By 2020, identify potential outplant sites in the Tumon Bay Marine Preserve that will be resilient to climate

impacts and local stressors by assessing depth, water flow, substrate, and level of human use. Potential

sites include deeper reef flat areas adjacent to Matapang, Pacific Islands Club, and Trankilidad.

6.3. Outplant coral fragments and/or sexual recruits with community participation at at least one site in the

Tumon Bay Marine Preserve by 2021 and implement regular monitoring and maintenance of outplant plots

by community members.

7. Continue to support Guam’s Long-term Coral Reef Monitoring Program and conduct research that quantifies

change in Guam’s reef communities to inform response and restoration efforts.

7.1. Hire staff or fund a UOG graduate student to analyze existing datasets and answer management-driven

research questions by 2019.

7.2. Build capacity within local resource agencies and partners to better understand fish and coral taxonomy

and identification by 2020.

7.3. Synthesize existing data and collect new data as needed to quantify the extent of Acropora spp. and

Montipora spp. around Guam and map sites with the greatest proportions of these genera, which are

vulnerable to both COTS and bleaching.

7.4. Use data analyzed under RR7.3 to create a spatial model of these corals on Guam’s reefs, which will

contribute to the management of Acropora globiceps, a listed species under the Endangered Species Act.

7.5. Sustain existing community engagement programs focused on reef monitoring and impact reporting, such

as the community-based coral reef monitoring program under Friends of Reefs Guam and the Eyes of the

Reef Marianas program.

7.6. Conduct fine-scale current modeling of Guam's nearshore waters to better understand local connectivity

of reef taxa, including between preserves and unprotected areas and among Guam's marine preserves,

by the end of 2020.

OUTCOME RU: Sustainable recreational use and tourism

Goal: Enhance the resilience of Guam’s coral reef ecosystems and improve marine experiences for local residents

and tourists by reducing impacts of recreational use and misuse and promoting sustainable recreational use of coral

reef resources.


1. Implement and enforce existing statutes and plans related to sustainable recreational use and tourism,

including the Guam Seashore Reserve Plan, the Recreational Water Use Management Plan, and the Marine

Preserve Eco-permit law (PL 27-87).

1.1. Prepare a report outlining the Guam Seashore Reserve Plan, the Recreational Water Use Management

Plan, the Marine Preserve Eco-permit law (PL 27-87), and other plans and statutes relevant to sustainable

recreational use and tourism, including updates on their status, by the end of 2019.

1.2. Complete a needs assessment on how to improve and effectively implement plans documented by RU1.1,

then update these plans as needed, by the end of 2020.

1.3. Conduct inreach with Government of Guam agencies and the Legislature and outreach with local

businesses and stakeholders to increase awareness of the importance of these statutes and plans by 2020.

1.4. Seek funding for technical legal assistance to prepare and finalize regulations for PL 27-87 by 2020.


December 2018

1.5. Identify a sustainable source of funding for enforcement of plans and statutes outlined by RU1.1 by 2023.

1.6. Implement and enforce updated plans and statutes by 2025 once barriers identified by RU1.1 have been

addressed.

2. Develop and implement programs to engage stakeholders and the public in sustainable recreational use.

2.1. Collaborate with Naval Facilities Engineering Command to improve the marine outreach portion of the

incoming education program for active duty and temporary duty personnel.

2.2. Conduct a broad outreach and education campaign using effective design and marketing practices to

educate the public on sustainable recreational use, including development of products such as radio and

television advertisements, signage, mascot development, etc.

2.3. Develop a culturally-relevant outreach and education campaign related to sustainable recreational use

targeted to migrants from the Federated States of Micronesia and translated into relevant languages.

2.4. Develop a list of alternate activities and/or sites for use by marine tour operators during coral bleaching

events, extreme low tide events, and other periods of high stress for coral reefs to relieve pressure and

reduce impacts at heavily-used reef sites, including priority sites such as the Tumon Bay Marine Preserve

and the Piti Bomb Holes Marine Preserve.

3. Develop and implement outreach and education programs for visitors in cooperation with the tourism industry

to reduce impacts of recreational use on Guam’s coral reefs.

3.1. Strengthen relationships with tour operators through collaboration with the Guam Visitors Bureau and the

Guam Hotel and Restaurant Association.

3.2. Cooperate with the Guam Visitors Bureau and the Guam Community College to incorporate marine

education into the Tour Guide Certification Training course.

3.3. Amend existing legislation (PL 23-136) to classify marine tour operators (e.g. dive operators and

instructors, dive guides, and boat captains) as tour guides in order to mandate participation by these

individuals in the Tour Guide Certification Training course.

3.4. Work with the Guam Visitors Bureau and the Guam Hotel and Restaurant Association to develop culturally-

relevant outreach materials translated into multiple languages, potentially including an ocean pledge,

videos to be played on airplanes, and/or brochures for hotels.

3.5. Develop and implement a framework for a sustainable financing mechanism through tourism by 2020 to

support coral reef management, conservation, and restoration efforts.

OUTCOME H: Human community resilience and climate change adaptation

Goal: In recognition of humans as part of local ecosystems, enhance the resilience of Guam’s human communities

by increasing the capacity of local communities to adapt to climate change while facilitating sustainable economic

development and preserving culture, traditions, and ways of life.


1. Conduct management-driven socioeconomic research and monitoring using advanced social science

approaches to assess the potential social, political, cultural, and economic impacts of climate change on Guam’s

human communities.

1.1. Conduct surveys to measure public awareness of climate change issues and how climate change impacts

are being experienced and perceived by the people of Guam.


December 2018

1.2. Conduct a study on how coral reef degradation may impact the tourism industry, local economy, and

cultural practices.

1.3. Complete an island-wide vulnerability assessment to support resilience-based management and better

understand the anticipated impacts of climate change on human communities and coral reefs,

incorporating both community knowledge and climate science.

1.4. Communicate research findings on the impacts of climate change on Guam’s human communities to the

Legislature and the public through outreach including social marketing.

2. Evaluate, develop, and promote alternative livelihood programs to reduce local impacts on coral reefs from

unsustainable practices and protect livelihoods that may be threatened by climate change.

2.1. Conduct a feasibility study on the economic potential of various alternative livelihood options, such as

aquaculture, cultural tourism, etc.

2.2. Secure translators and interpreters to improve engagement with immigrant communities on issues such

as fisheries and alternative livelihoods.

2.3. Identify leaders within immigrant communities and groups, such as the Micronesian Resource Center and

the Guam Ministerial Association, to engage them in conversations about fisheries issues and alternative

livelihood programs.

2.4. Support the establishment of community-based non-governmental organizations that are focused on

developing alternative livelihood programs and reducing unsustainable practices.

2.5. Support the creation of jobs related to coral reef and watershed restoration and management.

3. Develop and support programs to increase awareness of climate change and marine conservation, while

engaging the public in climate change adaptation, conservation, and citizen science.

3.1. Secure funding to hire a Coral Reef Outreach and Education Coordinator to coordinate and implement

coral reef outreach and education activities by 2021.

3.2. Identify and define target audiences, such as schools, villages, and populations, that are most vulnerable

to sea level rise and other climate change impacts.

3.3. Develop programs that promote a sense of ownership over natural resources, such as a reef pledge that

holds families and/or businesses accountable for conservation (akin to the adopt-a-highway program).

3.4. Establish a public visitor center focused on climate change issues and marine education.

3.5. Incorporate relevant climate change adaptation strategies developed by other islands and jurisdictions into

outreach and education programs on Guam.

3.6. Continue to support Friends of Reefs Guam, Eyes of the Reef Marianas, Guardians of the Reef, Guam

Nature Alliance projects, and other outreach initiatives that increase community engagement in

conservation, monitoring, citizen science, and climate change adaptation.

3.7. Support scholarship and internship programs for students interested in marine biology, environmental

science, and conservation.

4. Incorporate socioeconomic considerations into coral reef management, planning, and activities.

4.1. Assess the feasibility and benefits of public-private partnerships for coral reef management and restoration

efforts.

4.2. Evaluate the socioeconomic costs and benefits of coral reef conservation and management.

4.3. Ensure that decision makers, community leaders, and groups are effectively and consistently engaged in

discussions about climate change and coral reef resilience.

4.4. Incorporate projections for the potential influx of climate change refugees who may relocate to Guam into

coral reef conservation and management plans and activities.


December 2018

4.5. Increase Guam’s participation in regional initiatives that aim to safeguard human wellbeing and protect

natural resources, such as the Micronesia Challenge.

4.6. By the end of 2020, develop an inter-agency plan to improve capacity to engage in community-focused

natural resources management and enhance community engagement across Government of Guam

activities and programs.

5. By 2021, collaborate with the tourism sector to plan for climate change adaptation in Tumon by developing a

Community Action Plan to collectively address issues of flooding and sea level rise.

5.1. Identify key stakeholders in the tourism sector, including the Guam Visitors Bureau and the Guam Hotel

and Restaurant Association, and engage them in the Community Action Plan development process by 2019.

5.2. Develop a list of best management practices for inclusion in the Community Action Plan for Tumon,

including increased use of green infrastructure by the end of 2019.

5.3. Inventory and re-evaluate grey structures (e.g. sea walls, surf breaks) and assess the need for additional

ponding basin systems in Tumon by 2020.

5.4. Review and assess maintenance plans for private and public properties in Tumon to determine how they

address issues with storm water and flooding by the end of 2020.

5.5. Finalize the Tumon Community Action Plan with input from the tourism sector and community members

by the end of 2021.


December 2018

References

Amesbury JR and RL Hunter-Anderson. 2003. Review of archaeological and historical data concerning reef fishing

in the US flag islands of Micronesia: Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Western Pacific Regional Fishery

Management Council. 147 pp

Anthony KRN, PA Marshall, A Abdulla, R Beeden, C Bergh, R Black, CM Eakin, ET Game, M Gooch, NAJ Graham, A

Green, SF Heron, R van Hooidonk, C Knowland, S Mangubhai, N Marshall, JA Maynard, P McGinnity, E Mcleod, PJ

Mumby, M Nystrom, D Obura, J Oliver, HP Possingham, RL Pressey, GP Rowlands, J Tamelander, D Wachenfeld,

and S Wear. 2015. Operationalizing resilience for adaptive coral reef management under global climate change.

Global Change Biology 21:48-61

Anthony KRN, JA Maynard, G Diaz-Pulido, PJ Mumby, PA Marshall, L Cao, and O Hoegh-Guldberg. 2011. Ocean

acidification and warming will lower coral reef resilience. Global Change Biology 17:1798-1808

Baker AC, PW Glynn, and B Riegl. 2008. Climate change and coral reef bleaching: An ecological assessment of long-

term impacts, recovery trends, and future outlook. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science 80:435-471

Bijma J, H-O Portner, C Yesson, and AD Rogers. 2013. Climate change and the oceans – What does the future

hold? Marine Pollution Bulletin 74:495-505

Birkeland C. 1982. Terrestrial runoff as a cause of outbreaks of Acanthaster planci (Echinodermata: Asteroidea).

Marine Biology 69(2):175-185

Birkeland C. 1997. Status of coral reefs in the Marianas. In R Dollar and C Birkeland (Eds.), Status of coral reefs in

the Pacific (pp 91-100). Hawaii Sea Grant College Program, School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology,

University of Hawaii.

Birkeland C, D Rowley, and RH Randall. 1981. Coral recruitment patterns at Guam. Proceedings of the 4th

International Coral Reef Symposium 2:339-344

Bradley P, LS Fore, W Fisher, and W Davis. 2010. Coral reef biological criteria: Using the Clean Water Act to protect

a national treasure. Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency. xvi + 1.1-10.1 +

Appendices

Brodie J, K Fabricius, G De’ath, and K Okaji. 2005. Are increased nutrient inputs responsible for more outbreaks of

the crown-of-thorns starfish? An appraisal of the evidence. Marine Pollution Bulletin 51(1-4):266-278

Bruno JF, LE Petes, CD Harvell, and A Hettinger. 2003. Nutrient enrichment can increase the severity of coral

diseases. Ecology Letters 6(12):1056-1061

Bruno JF and A Valdivia. 2016. Coral reef degradation is not correlated with local human population density.

Scientific Reports 6:29778

Burdick D. 2016. The status of Guam’s shallow coral reefs. Presented at the 36th US Coral Reef Task Force

meeting, 23 September 2016. Hagatna, Guam.


December 2018

Burdick D, V Brown, J Asher, C Caballes, M Gawel, L Goldman, A Hall, J Kenyon, T Leberer, E Lundblad, J McIlwain, J

Miller, D Minton, M Nadon, N Pioppi, L Raymundo, B Richards, R Schroeder, P Schupp, E Smith, and B Zgliczynski.

2008. Status of the coral reef ecosystems of Guam: 2008. Guam Coastal Management Program, Bureau of

Statistics and Plans. iv + 76 pp

Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management (BOEM). ND. Executive Order 13089 – Coral Reef Protection.


Camp EF, DJ Smith, C Evenhuis, I Enochs, D Manzello, S Woodcock, DJ Suggett. 2016. Acclimatization to high-

variance habitats does not enhance physiological tolerance of two key Caribbean corals to future temperature

and pH. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 283(1831): 20160442

Carilli JE, RD Norris, BA Black, SM Walsh, and M McField. 2009. Local stressors reduce coral resilience to bleaching.

PLoS ONE 4(7):e6324

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). 2017. Australia-Oceania: Guam. The World Factbook.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gq.html

Cleary DFR, L De Vantier, Giyanto, L Vail, P Manto, NJ de Voogd, PG Rachello-Dolmen, Y Tuti, A Budiyanto, J

Wolstenholme, BW Hoeksema, and Suharsono. 2008. Relating variation in species composition to environmental

variables: A multi-taxon study in an Indonesian coral reef complex. Aquatic Science 70(4):419-431

Clinton WJ. 1998. Executive Order 13089 – Coral Reef Protection. Online by G Peters and JT Woolley, The

American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=56122

Colgan M. 1987. Coral reef recovery on Guam (Micronesia) after catastrophic predation by Acanthaster planci.

Ecology 68(6):1592-1605

Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP). ND. Who we are: Coral reef ecosystems – valuable and threatened.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. https://coralreef.noaa.gov/about/welcome.html

CRCP. 2009. NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program Goals and Objectives 2010-2015. CRCP, NOAA. 39 pp

US Coral Reef Task Force (CRTF). 2000. National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs. vi + 34 pp

CRTF. 2017. About the US Coral Reef Task Force. https://www.coralreef.gov/about

Cote IM and ES Darling. 2010. Rethinking ecosystem resilience in the face of climate change. PLoS Biology

8(7):e1000438

Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program (DARRP). NDa. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.

NOAA. https://darrp.noaa.gov/fish-and-wildlife-coordination-act

DARRP. NDb. Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990. NOAA. https://darrp.noaa.gov/oil-pollution-act-opa-1990


https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gq.html

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=56122

https://coralreef.noaa.gov/about/welcome.html

https://www.coralreef.gov/about




December 2018

Danovaro R, L Bongiorni, C Corinaldesi, D Giovannelli, E Damiani, P Astolfi, L Greci, and A Pusceddu. 2008.

Sunscreens cause coral bleaching by promoting viral infections. Environmental Health Perspectives 116(4):441-447

Darling ES, TR McClanahan, and IM Cote. 2010. Combined effects of two stressors on Kenyan coral reefs are

additive or antagonistic, not synergistic. Conservation Letters 3(2):122-130

Declaration of commitment: The Micronesia Challenge. 2006. Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of the

Marshall Islands, Palau, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam. 3 pp

Denton GRW, CM Sian-Denton, LP Concepcion, and HR Wood. 2005. Nutrient status of Tumon Bay in relation to

intertidal blooms of the filamentous green alga, Enteromorpha clathrata. Technical Report No. 110. Water and

Environmental Research Institute of the Western Pacific, University of Guam. 53 pp

Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2003. Monitoring and evaluating municipal/city plans and

programs for coastal resource management. Coastal and Marine Management Office and Coastal Resource

Management Project, Government of the Philippines, and the US Agency for International Development. 93 pp

Downs CA, E Kramarsky-Winter, R Segal, J Fauth, S Knutson, O Bronstein, FR Ciner, R Jeger, Y Litchenfeld, CM

Woodley, P Pennington, K Cadenas, A Kushmaro, and Y Loya. 2015. Toxicopathological effects of the sunscreen UV

filter, oxybenzone (benzophenone-3), on coral planulae and cultured primary cells and its environmental

contamination in Hawaii and the US Virgin Islands. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology

70(2):265-288

Endangered Species Program. 2013. ESA Basics – 40 years of conserving endangered species. US Fish and Wildlife

Service. 2 pp

Endangered Species Program. 2015. Endangered Species Act – Overview. US Fish and Wildlife Service.


Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017a. Summary of the Clean Water Act. https://www.epa.gov/laws-

regulations/summary-clean-water-act

EPA. 2017b. What is the National Environmental Policy Act? https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-

environmental-policy-act

EPA. 2017c. Summary of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(Superfund). https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-comprehensive-environmental-response-

compensation-and-liability-act

EPA. 2017d. Search for Superfund sites where you live. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/search-superfund-sites-

where-you-live

EPA. 2017e. Guam – Facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA Science

Inventory. https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryID=142598












December 2018

EPA. 2017f. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) overview. https://www.epa.gov/rcra/resource-

conservation-and-recovery-act-rcra-overview

EPA. 2017g. RCRA Corrective Action Enforcement Actions. https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/rcra-corrective-

action-enforcement-actions

EPA. 2017h. Oil Pollution Act (OPA) and federal facilities. https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/oil-pollution-act-

opa-and-federal-facilities

Erftemeijer PLA, B Reigl, BW Hoeksema, and PA Todd. 2012. Environmental impacts of dredging and other

sediment disturbances on corals: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 64:1737-1765

Evans DL, CC Lautenbacher, Jr., JR Mahoney, and MA Davidson. 2002. A national coral reef action strategy. Report

to Congress on implementation of the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 and the National Action Plan to

Conserve Coral Reefs in 2002-2003. vii + 122 pp

Fabricius KE, K Okaji, and G. De’ath. 2010. Three lines of evidence to link outbreaks of the crown-of-thorns sea

star Acanthaster planci to the release of larval food limitation. Coral Reefs 29(3):593-605

Flores T. 2006. Offshore fisheries program annual program report FY 2006. Division of Aquatic and Wildlife

Resources, Department of Agriculture, Government of Guam. 8 pp

Gawel MJ. 1999. Protection of marine benthic habitats in the Pacific islands – a case study of Guam. Oceanologica

Acta 22(6):721-726

Gilmour J. 1999. Experimental investigation into the effects of suspended sediment on fertilization, larval survival,

and settlement in a scleractinian coral. Marine Biology 135:451-462

Grafeld S, K Oleson, M Barnes, M Peng, C Chan, and M Weijerman. 2016. Divers’ willingness to pay for improved

coral reef conditions in Guam: An untapped source of funding for management and conservation? Ecological

Economics 128:202-213

Graham NAJ, S Jennings, MA MacNeil, D Mouillot, and SK Wilson. 2015. Predicting climate-driven regime shifts

versus rebound potential in coral reefs. Nature 518:94-97

Graham NAJ, SK Wilson, S Jennings, NCV Polunin, J Robinson, JP Bijoux, and TM Daw. 2007. Lag effects in the

impacts of mass coral bleaching on coral reef fish, fisheries, and ecosystems. Conservation Biology 21(5):1291-

1300

Guam Coastal Management Program (GCMP). 2013. Guam’s Coral Reef Local Action Stratgies. GCMP, Bureau of

Statistics and Plan. 23 pp

Guam Visitors Bureau (GVB). 2011. Annual report and membership directory: 2010. Guam Visitors Bureau. 65 pp

GVB. 2014. Guam Tourism 2020 Plan. Guam Visitors Bureau. 49 pp








December 2018

GVB. 2017. Annual report: 2016. Guam Visitors Bureau. 65 pp

GVB. 2018. Annual report: 2017. Guam Visitors Bureau. 65 pp

Guzner B, A Novplansky, O Shalit, and NE Chadwick. 2010. Indirect impacts of recreational scuba diving: Patterns

of growth and predation in branching stony corals. Bulletin of Marine Science 86(3):727-742

Haapkylä J, RKF Unsworth, M Flavell, DG Bourne, B Schaffelke, and BL Willis. 2011. Seasonal rainfall and runoff

promote coral disease on an inshore reef. PLoS ONE 6(2):e16893

Hawkins JP, CM Roberts, T Van’t Hof, K de Meyer, J Tratalos, and C Aldam. 1999. Effects of recreational scuba

diving on Caribbean coral and fish communities. Conservation Biology 13(4):888-897

Heenan A and ID Williams. 2013. Monitoring herbivorous fishes as indicators of coral reef resilience in American

Samoa. PLoS One 8(11):e79604

Heron SF, L Johnston, G Liu, EF Geiger, JA Maynard, JL de la Cour, S Johnson, R Okano, D Benavente, TFR Burgess, J

Iguel, DI Perez, WJ Skirving, AE Strong, K Tirak, and CM Eakin. 2016. Validation of reef-scale thermal stress satellite

products for coral bleaching monitoring. Remote Sensing 8(1):59

Hoegh-Guldberg O. 2011. Coral reef ecosystems and anthropogenic climate change. Regional Environmental

Change 11(Suppl. 1):S215-S227

van Hooidonk R, JA Maynard, D Manzello, and S Planes. 2014. Opposite latitudinal gradients in projected ocean

acidification and bleaching impacts on coral reefs. Global Change Biology 20(1):103-112

van Hooidonk R, JA Maynard, and S Planes. 2013. Temporary refugia for coral reefs in a warming world. Nature

Climate Change 3:1-4

van Hooidonk R, JA Maymard, J Tamelander, J Gove, G Ahmadia, L Raymundo, G Williams, SF Heron, and S Planes.

2016. Local-scale projections of coral reef futures and implications of the Paris Agreement. Scientific Reports

6:39666

Hoot WC, A Sturm, A Loerzel, D Burdick, L Raymundo. 2017. Coral damage and disease along human use gradients

in Tumon Bay, Guam. Presented at the 8th Island Sustainability Conference, 19 April 2017. Center for Island

Sustainability. Tumon, Guam.

Hoot W and D Burdick. 2017. Guam Coral Bleaching Response Plan. 56 pp

Houk P, D Benavente, J Iguel, S Johnson, and R Okano. 2014. Coral reef disturbance and recovery dynamics differ

across gradients of localized stressors in the Mariana Islands. PLoS ONE 9(8):e105731

Houk P, J Cuetos-Bueno, B Tibbatts, and J Gutierrez. 2018. Variable density dependence and the restructuring of

coral-reef fisheries across 25 years of exploitation. Scientific Reports 8:5725


December 2018

Houk P, K Rhodes, J Cuentos-Bueno, S Lindfield, V Fread, and JL McIlwain. 2012. Commercial coral-reef fisheries

across Micronesia: A need for improving management. Coral Reefs 31:13-26

Hughes TP, DR Bellwood, C Folke, RS Steneck, and J Wilson. 2005. New paradigms for supporting the resilience of

marine ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20(7):380-386

Hughes TP, JT Kerry, M Alvarez-Noriega, JG Alvarez-Romero, KD Anderson, AH Baird, RC Babcock, M Beger, DR

Bellwood, R Berkelmans, TC Bridge, IR Butler, M Byrne, NE Cantin, S Comeau, SR Connolly, GS Cumming, SJ Dalton,

G Diaz-Pulido, CM Eakin, WF Figueira, JP Gilmour, HB Harrison, SF Heron, AS Hoey, J-PA Hobbs, MO Hoogenboom,

EV Kennedy, C-Y Kuo, JM Lough, RJ Lowe, G Liu, MT McCulloch, HA Malcolm, MJ McWilliam, JM Pandolfi, RJ Pears,

MS Pratchett, V Schoepf, T Simpson, WJ Skirving, B Sommer, G Torda, DR Wachenfeld, BL Willis, and SK Wilson.

2017. Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals. Nature 543:373-377

Hughes TP, MJ Rodrigues, DR Bellwood, D Ceccarelli, O Hoegh-Guldberg, L McCook, N Moltschaniwskyj, MD

Pratchett, RS Steneck, and B Willis. 2007. Phase shifts, herbivory, and the resilience of coral reefs to climate

change. Current Biology 17:360-365

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Synthesis report for policy makers. Climate change

2014: Synthesis report. In RK Pachauri and LA Meyer (Eds.), Contribution of working groups I, II, and III to the Fifth

assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland. 151 pp

Jones R, GF Ricardo, and AP Negri. 2015. Effects of sediments on the reproductive cycle of corals. Marine Pollution

Bulletin 100:13-33

Junjie RK, NK Browne, PLA Erftemeijer, and PA Todd. 2014. Impacts of sediments on coral energetics: Partitioning

the effects of turbidity and settling particles. PLoS ONE 9(9):e107195.

Kerr AM. 2012. Fish names of the Mariana Islands, Micronesia. Laboratory Technical Report 139, University of

Guam Marine Laboratory. 48 pp

Lamb JB, JD True, S Piromvaragorn, and BL Willis. 2014. Scuba diving damage and intensity of tourist activities

increases coral disease prevalence. Biological Conservation 178:88-96

Lamb JB, BL Willis, EA Fiorenza, CS Couch, R Howard, DN Rader, JD True, LA Kelly, A Ahmad, J Jompa, and CD

Harvell. 2018. Plastic waste associated with disease on coral reefs. Science 359(6374):460-462

Laurans Y, N Pascal, T Binet, L Brander, E Clua, G David, D Rojat, and A Seidl. 2013. Economic valuation of

ecosystem services from coral reefs in the South Pacific: Taking stock of recent experience. Journal of

Environmental Management 116:135-144

Lesser MP. 2007. Coral reef bleaching and global climate change: Can corals survive the next century? Proceedings

of the National Academy of Sciences 104(13):5259-5260

Loya Y, K Sakai, K Yamazato, Y Nakano, H Sambali, and R van Woesik. 2001. Coral bleaching: The winners and the

losers. Ecology Letters 4(2):122-131


December 2018

MacNeil MA, NAJ Graham, JE Cinner, SK Wilson, ID Williams, J Maina, S Newman, AM Friedlander, S Jupiter, NVC

Polunin, and TR McClanahan. 2015. Recovery potential of the world’s coral reef fishes. Nature 520(7547):341-344

Maynard JA, S McKagan, L Raymundo, S Johnson, GN Ahmadia, L Johnston, P Houk, GJ Williams, M Kendall, SF

Heron, R van Hooidonk, E Mcleod, D Tracey, and S Planes. 2015. Assessing relative resilience potential of coral

reefs to inform management. Biological Conservation 192:109-119

Maynard JA and LR Raymundo. 2017. Past and projected future climate impacts to coral reefs in Guam. Presented

at the Guam Coastal Climate Change Resilience Workshop, Climate change and coastal ecosystems in Guam:

Management, sustainability forecasts, and community engagement. 3 March 2016. Tumon, Guam

McClanahan TR, SD Donner, JA Maynard, MA MacNeil, NAJ Graham, J Maina, AC Baker, JB Alemu I, M Beger, SJ

Campbell, ES Darling, CM Eakin, SF Heron, SD Jupiter, CL Lundquist, E Mcleod, PJ Mumby, MJ Paddack, ER Selig,

and R van Woesik. 2012. Prioritizing key resilience indicators to support coral reef management in a changing

climate. PLoS One 7(8):e42884

McCoshum SM, A Schlarb, and KA Baum. 2016. Direct and indirect effects of sunscreen exposure for reef biota.

Hydrobiologia 776(1):139-146

Micronesia Challenge Steering Committee. 2011. A report on progress to implement the Micronesia Challenge

2006-2011, submitted to the Micronesia Chief Executives Summit. 33 pp

Minton D. 2005. Fire, erosion, and sedimentation in the Asan-Piti watershed and War in the Pacific National

Historic Park, Guam. Report prepared for the National Parks Service. 99 pp

Minton D, I Lundgren, and A Pakenham. 2007. A two-year study of coral recruitment and sedimentation in Asan

Bay, Guam. Final report prepared for the National Parks Service. 41 pp

Moran DC and J Jenson. 2004. Dye trace of groundwater flow from Guam International Airport and Harmon Sink

to Agana Bay and Tumon Bay, Guam. Technical Report No. 97. Water and Environmental Research Institute of the

Western Pacific, University of Guam. 32 pp

Mumby PJ, S Bejarano, Y Golbuu, RS Steneck, SN Arnold, R van Woesik, and AM Friedlander. 2013. Empirical

relationships among resilience indicators on Micronesian reefs. Coral Reefs 32:213-226

Mumby PJ, AR Harborne, J Williams, CV Kappel, DR Brumbaugh, F Micheli, KE Holmes, CP Dahlgren, CB Paris, and

PG Blackwell. 2007a. Trophic cascade facilitates coral recruitment in a marine reserve. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences 104(20):8362-8367

Mumby PJ, A Hastings, and HJ Edwards. 2007b. Thresholds and the resilience of Caribbean coral reefs. Nature

450:98-101

Mumby PJ and RS Steneck. 2008. Coral reef management and conservation in light of rapidly evolving ecological

paradigms. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10:555-563


December 2018

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2016a. Endangered Species Act (ESA). NOAA.


NMFS. 2016b. Ecosystem-based fisheries management policy of the National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA. 8 pp

NMFS. 2017a. Endangered and threatened species under NMFS’ jurisdiction: Marine invertebrates. NOAA.

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#invertebrates

NMFS. 2017b. Guam: ESA Section 6 program. NOAA.


NMFS. 2017c. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper v.3.0. Habitat Conservation, NMFS, NOAA.


NMFS. ND. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. NOAA.


The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2017. How we work: The Micronesia Challenge.

https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/asiaandthepacific/micronesia/howwework/index.htm

Nystrom M. 2006. Redundancy and response diversity of functional groups: Implications for the resilience of coral

reefs. AMBIO 35(1):30-35

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. 2011. Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument evaluation

strategy. National Ocean Service, NOAA. 42 pp

Oxford Economics. 2009. Valuing the effects of Great Barrier Reef bleaching. Great Barrier Reef Foundation.

Newstead, Australia. 95 pp

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC). 2006. Cruise report CR-06-004: Oscar Elton Sette, cruise 05-12,

Marianas Archipelago (Island of Guam, Santa Rosa Reef, and Galvez Bank). National Marine Fisheries Service,

NOAA. 46 pp

Parker BA, JM West, AT Hamilton, CA Courtney, P MacGowan, KH Koltes, DA Gibbs, and P Bradley. 2017.

Adaptation Design Tool: Corals and Climate Adaptation Planning. NOAA Technical Memorandum CRCP 27. NOAA

CRCP. Silver Spring, MD. 58 pp

Paulay G. 2003. Marine biodiversity on Guam and the Marianas: Overview. Micronesica 35-36:3-25

Porter V, T Leberer, M Gawel, J Gutierrez, D Burdick, V Torres, and E Lujan. 2005. The state of the coral reef

ecosystems of Guam. In J Waddell (Ed.), The state of the coral reef ecosystems of the United States and Pacific

Freely Associated States (pp 442-487). NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 11. NOAA/NCCOS Center for

Coastal Monitoring and Assessment

QMark Research. 2016a. Guam Visitors Bureau: Japan visitor tracker exit profile, FY2016 data aggregation.

Prepared for the Guam Visitors Bureau. 106 pp


http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm%23invertebrates




https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/asiaandthepacific/micronesia/howwework/index.htm


December 2018

QMark Research. 2016a. Guam Visitors Bureau: Korean visitor tracker exit profile, FY2016 data aggregation.

Prepared for the Guam Visitors Bureau. 104 pp

Rachello-Dolmen PG and DFR Cleary. 2007. Relating coral species traits in environmental conditions in the Jakarta

Bay/Pulau Seribu reef system, Indonesia. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science 73:816-826

Randall RH. 1971. Tanguisson-Tumon, Guam coral reefs before, during, and after the crown of thorns starfish

(Acanthaster) predation. MS thesis, Department of Biology, University of Guam. 119 pp

Rasher DB, AS Hoey, and ME Hay. 2013. Consumer diversity interacts with prey defenses to drive ecosystem

function. Ecology 94(6):1347-1358

Raymundo LJ. 2016. Bleaching on Guam: Recent events and their impacts. Presented at the Guam Coastal Climate

Change Resilience Workshop, Climate change and coastal ecosystems in Guam: Management, sustainability

forecasts, and community engagement. 3 March 2016. Tumon, Guam

Raymundo LJ, D Burdick, VA Lapacek, R Miller, and V Brown. 2017. Anomalous temperatures and extreme tides:

Guam staghorn Acropora succumb to a double threat. Marine Ecology Progress Series 564:47-55

Raymundo LJ, D Burdick, WC Hoot, RM Miller, V Brown, T Reynolds, J Gault, J Idechong, J Fifer, and A Williams.

2018 (In review). Successive bleaching events cause mass coral mortality in Guam, Micronesia.

Raymundo LJ, WL Licuanan, and AM Kerr. 2018. Adding insult to injury: Ship groundings are associated with coral

disease in a pristine reef. PLoS ONE 13(9):e0202939

Redding JE, RL Myers-Miller, DM Baker, M Fogel, LJ Raymundo, and K Kim. 2013. Link between sewage-derived

nitrogen pollution and coral disease severity in Guam. Marine Pollution Bulletin 73(1):57-63

Reynolds T, D Burdick, P Houk, L Raymundo, and S Johnson. 2014. Unprecedented coral bleaching across the

Marianas Archipelago. Coral Reefs 33(2):499

Richmond RH, T Rongo, Y Golbuu, S Victor, N Idechong, G Davis, W Kostka, L Neth, M Hamnett, and E Wolanski.

2007. Watersheds and coral reefs: Conservation science, policy, and implementation. BioScience 57(7):598-607

Riegl B, A Bruckner, SL Coles, P Renaud, and RE Dodge. 2009. Coral reefs: Threats and conservation in an era of

global change. The Year in Ecology and Conservation Biology, 2009. Annals of the NY Academy of Sciences

1162:136-186

Rongo T. 2005. Coral community change along a sediment gradient in Fouha Bay, Guam. MS Thesis, Marine

Laboratory, University of Guam. 73 pp

Sandin SA, JE Smith, EE DeMartini, EA Dinsdale, SD Donner, AM Friedlander, T Konotchick, M Malay, JE Maragos, D

Obura, O Pantos, G Paulay, M Richie, F Rohwer, RE Schroeder, S Walsh, JBC Jackson, N Knowlton, and E Sala. 2008.

Baselines and degradation of coral reefs in the Northern Line Islands. PLoS ONE 3(2):e1548.


December 2018

Sebens KP. 1994. Biodiversity of coral reefs: What are we losing and why? American Zoologist 34(1):115-133

Shaver EC, DE Burkepile, and BR Silliman. 2018. Local management actions can increase coral resilience to

thermally-induced bleaching. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2:1075-1079

Smalley DH and AJ Mueller. 2004. Water resources development under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. US

Fish and Wildlife Service. x + ii + 490 pp

Spalding MD, RD Brumbaugh, and E Landis. 2016. Atlas of Ocean Wealth. The Nature Conservancy. Arlington, VA

Territory of Guam and NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP). 2010. Guam’s Coral Reef Management

Priorities. CRCP, NOAA. 32 pp

Turgeon DD, RG Asch, BD Causey, RE Dodge, W Jaap, K Banks, J Delaney, BD Keller, R Speiler, CA Matos, JR Garcia,

E Diaz, D Catanzaro, CS Rogers, Z Hillis-Starr, R Nemeth, M Taylor, GP Schmahl, MW Miller, DA Gulko, JE Maragos,

AM Friedlander, CL Hunter, RS Brainard, P Craig, RH Richmond, G Davis, J Starmer, M Trianni, P Houk, CE

Birkeland, A Edward, Y Golbuu, J Gutierrez, N Idechong, G Paulay, A Tafileichig, and N Vander Velde. 2002. The

state of coral reef ecosystems of the United States and the Pacific Freely Associated States. National Centers for

Coastal Ocean Science, National Ocean Service, NOAA. 265 pp

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). ND. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Digest of federal resource laws of

interest to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. https://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/fwcoord.html

Van Beukering P, W Haider, M Longland, H Cesar, J Sablan, S Shjegstad, B Beardmore, Y Liu, and GO Garces. 2007.

The economic value of Guam’s coral reefs. xviii + 102 pp

Vega Thurber RL, DE Burkepile, C Fuchs, AA Shantz, R McMinds, and JR Zaneveld. 2013. Chronic nutrient

enrichment increases prevalence and severity of coral disease and bleaching. Global Change Biology 20(2):544-

554

Ward S and P Harrison. 1997. The effects of elevated nutrient levels on settlement of coral larvae during the

ENCORE experiment – Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proceedings of the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium

1:891-896

Weijerman M, I Williams, J Gutierrez, S Grafeld, B Tibbatts, and G Davis. 2016. Trends in biomass of coral reef

fishes, derived from shore-based creel surveys in Guam. Fishery Bulletin 114:237-256

Wilkinson C. 2006. Status of coral reefs of the world: Summary of threats and remedial action. In IM Cote and JD

Reynolds (Eds.), Coral Reef Conservation (pp 3-39). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Williams ID, JK Baum, A Heenan, KM Hanson, MO Nadon, and RE Brainard. 2015. Human, oceanographic, and

habitat drivers of central and western Pacific coral reef fish assemblages. PLoS ONE 10(4):e0120516

Williams ID and NVC Polunin. 2001. Large-scale associations between macroalgal cover and grazer biomass on

mid-depth reefs in the Caribbean. Coral Reefs 19:358-366

https://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/fwcoord.html


December 2018

Williams I, J Zamzow, K Lino, M Ferguson, and E Donham. 2012. Status of coral reef fish assemblages and benthic

condition around Guam: A report based on the underwater visual surveys in Guam and the Mariana Archipelago,

April-June 2011. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-33. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, National

Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. 22 pp + Appendices

Wolanski E, RH Richmond, G Davis, and V Bonito. 2003. Water and fine sediment dynamics in transient river

plumes in a small, reef-fringed bay, Guam. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Science 56:1029-1043

Zaneveld JR, DE Burkepile, AA Shantz, CE Pritchard, R McMinds, JP Payet, R Welsh, AMS Correa, NP Lemoine, S Rosales,

C Fuchs, JA Maynard, and R Vega Thurber. 2016. Overfishing and nutrient pollution interact with temperature to

disrupt coral reefs down to microbial scales. Nature Communications 7:11833


December 2018

Appendices

APPENDIX I: Coral reef management survey results

Survey overview

The survey on Guam’s coral reef management efforts and priorities, which was administered online in October

2017, received a total of 29 responses from representatives of 15 entities:

Three local agencies (BSP, GEPA, DAWR)

Four federal agencies (NOAA, USFWS, NPS, DOD-NAVFAC)

Four local educational institutions/programs (GCC, UOGML, UOG-CIS, UOG-Sea Grant)

Two nonprofit organizations (TNC, Ayuda Foundation)

One local business (MDA)

One intergovernmental program (Micronesia Challenge)

Survey takers were asked basic demographic information: name; email address; job/position title; agency or

organization; how their work relates to coral reefs; and their level of experience (number of years) in coral reef

management and/or research (questions 1-6). Respondents answered eight additional questions about the threats

facing Guam’s coral reef ecosystems; the most important coral reef management priorities for the next five years;

the most and least successful aspects of reef management efforts on Guam; and the greatest knowledge and

capacity gaps limiting Guam’s ability to understand and manage its coral reef resources (questions 7-14).

Respondents also had the opportunity to provide their suggestions for potential training activities, programs,

and/or workshops to address existing knowledge and capacity gaps (question 15).

Survey questions and summary responses

Q6. How many years have you worked in coral reef management or research, or in a related field that depends

on coral reef ecosystems?

Respondents reported a total of 430.5 years of experience in coral reef management or research, or in a

related field that depends on coral reef ecosystems

Average of ~15 years per person (14.84), range: 1 year to 48 years

Q7. What are the top three threats to Guam’s coral reef ecosystems? Rank the following threats 1-3 with #1

being the most important today and for the next five years. You may add additional threats as “Other".

List of threats provided: Sedimentation, nutrient pollution, toxin/metal/chemical pollution, marine debris, fishing

pressure, ocean warming/coral bleaching, ocean acidification, sea level rise, coral disease, crown of thorns sea stars

(COTS), other nuisance or invasive species not including COTS, vessel groundings, recreational use and misuse

27 out of 29 respondents (93%) identified ocean warming/coral bleaching as one of the three most important

threats to Guam’s coral reef ecosystems; 20 respondents identified this as the #1 most important threat

21 out of 29 respondents (72%) identified sedimentation as one of the three most important threats to Guam’s

coral reef ecosystems; 4 respondents identified this as the #1 most important threat


December 2018

17 out of 29 respondents (59%) identified fishing pressure as one of the three most important threats to Guam’s

coral reef ecosystems; 4 respondents identified this as the #1 most important threat

How this question was analyzed: Each threat was assigned three points each time it was identified as the most

important threat, two points each time it was identified as the second most important threat, and one point each

time it was identified as the third most important threat. This method was used to develop a score for each threat.

Threats that weren’t listed, but were identified as important threats by respondents:

Storm water/runoff (Identified by one respondent as #3)

Dredging/military activities in Apra Harbor (Identified by one respondent as #3)

Lack of political will (Identified by one respondent as #3)

Development (Identified by one respondent as #3)

Scores:

Ocean warming/coral bleaching

(71) Vessel groundings (4) Lack of political will (1)

Sedimentation (39) Nutrient pollution (3) Development (1)

Fishing pressure (32) Marine debris (2) Ocean acidification (0)

COTS (7) Toxin/metal/chemical pollution

(1) Sea level rise (0)

Coral disease (6) Storm water runoff (1) Other nuisance or invasive

species (0)

Recreational use and misuse (4) Dredging/military activities in

Apra Harbor (1)

Q8. Explain why you selected those top three threats.

These answers have been summarized, revised for clarity, and categorized according to thematic areas.

General:

Severity, frequency, and spatial extent of threat’s impact

Most likely to have increasing impacts in coming years

Findings of monitoring efforts, coral reef research, and personal observations


December 2018

Some chose the most important threats based on what we can address through management efforts; others

chose most important threats based on what is most out of our control

Related to ocean warming and coral bleaching:

Coral bleaching has recently caused extensive coral mortality around Guam

Guam’s coral reefs are currently being affected by severe bleaching

Bleaching events are expected to become annual by mid-century

Related to sedimentation:

Sedimentation is a serious issue in southern Guam, where there is very low coral cover

Storm water runoff and sedimentation increase coral vulnerability to bleaching

Off-roading and burning continue to exacerbate sedimentation and erosion

Sedimentation affects both adult corals and coral recruitment

Erosion and sedimentation introduces nutrients and pathogens to coral reefs

Related to fishing pressure:

Guam’s fisheries are extremely depleted (near collapse if not already collapsed) due to lack of fishing

regulations and enforcement (e.g. no regulations for scuba spearfishing)

Fishing pressure has resulted in fish population declines around the island

Fishing pressure has not been addressed because it is a sensitive topic

Compromised fish populations reduce ecosystem resilience

Healthy herbivore biomass is needed to prevent phase shifts to algal dominated systems and support

ecosystem recovery after impacts

Related to COTS:

COTS have resulted in major coral decline around Guam

Decrease in abundance of preferred COTS prey (Acropora, Montipora) may have lessened the likelihood of

severe, widespread COTS outbreaks around Guam

Related to coral disease:

Coral diseases are currently poorly understood

Guam’s coral reefs have been affected – and are being affected by – several diseases

Bleached corals may be more susceptible to disease and diseased corals may be more susceptible to bleaching

Climate change is likely to increase disease occurrence

Related to recreational use and misuse:

Growing number of tourists on Guam has increased – and will continue to increase – human use impacts on

local coral reefs

Human users, both tourists and locals, aren’t aware that they’re causing damage

Related to other threats:

Increased population growth and development is leading to erosion, runoff, and degraded water quality

Dredging is contributing to reef stress and degradation in Apra Harbor


December 2018

Q9. Listed below are the top five coral reef management priorities identified for Guam for 2010-2015. Please rank

these priorities 1-5, with #1 being the most important priority for coral reef management today and for the next

five years. You may add additional priorities as “Other”.

List of priorities provided: Reduce impacts of land-based sources of pollution (LBSP); protect fisheries and reduce

impacts of fishing; reduce impacts of military build-up; reduce impacts of recreational use and misuse; reduce

impacts of climate change by enhancing resilience

19 out of 29 (66%) respondents identified “Reduce impacts of climate change by enhancing resilience” as the

first or second most important priority for coral reef management; 14 respondents identified this as the #1

most important priority

16 out of 29 (55%) respondents identified “Reduce impacts of LBSP” as the first or second most important

priority; 5 respondents identified this as the #1 most important priority

13 out of 29 (45%) respondents identified “Protect fisheries and reduce impacts of fishing” as the first or second

most important priority; 6 respondents identified this as the #1 most important priority

How this question was analyzed: Each priority was assigned 5 points each time it was identified as the most

important priority, 4 points each time it was identified as the second most important priority, 3 points each time is

was identified as the third most important priority, 2 points each time it was identified as the fourth most important

priority, and 1 point each time it was identified as the fifth most important priority. This method was used to develop

a score for each priority.

Priorities that weren’t listed, but were identified as priority areas by respondents:

Identify and map the most resilient and least resilient reefs around Guam (Identified by one respondent as #1)

Increase political will to protect coral reefs (Identified by one respondent as #1)

Produce scientific data to guide reef restoration (Identified by one respondent as #2)

Invest in alternative livelihoods (Identified by one respondent as #5)

Increase public awareness (Identified by one respondent as #5)

Increase resilience of human communities to climate change (Identified by one respondent as #5)

Scores:

Reduce impacts of climate change by enhancing

resilience (107) Increase political will (5)

Reduce impacts of LBSP (101) Produce data to guide reef restoration (4)

Protect fisheries and reduce impacts of fishing

(83) Invest in alternative livelihoods (1)

Reduce impacts of military build-up (58) Increase public awareness (1)

Reduce impacts of recreational use and misuse

(54) Increase resilience of human communities (1)

Identify and map reef resilience (5)


December 2018

Q10. What were your key considerations for selecting your top five priorities?


General:

Severity, frequency, and spatial extent of the threat to be addressed by a priority

Based on experiences in coral reef management, results of research and monitoring efforts, reviews of local

plans, discussions with experts, and personal observations

One respondent selected priorities based on corresponding management activities that could have greatest

immediate impacts

One respondent identified priorities based on what they think Guam can achieve based on current capacity in

coral reef management

One respondent prioritized island-wide problems (climate change and fisheries management) over localized

problems (LBSP and military build-up)

Related to reducing climate change impacts by enhancing resilience:

Projects that address this priority would also fall under the other priorities

Important to identify local solutions to address global threat of climate change

Need to understand how we can mitigate warming, acidification, and sea level rise and effectively restore

coral reefs to increase resilience

Importance of improving coral propagation and reef restoration techniques will become more valuable as

coral reefs face increasing impacts of climate change

Related to protecting fisheries and reducing fishing impacts:

Fisheries management is possible; there are specific management efforts to address this, while we can’t

decrease rate of climate change

Related to reducing impacts of military build-up:

The impacts of the military build-up are likely to be quite localized


December 2018

Related to reducing impacts of recreational use and misuse:

Impacts of recreational use aren’t as widespread as some of the other threats, but they occur on valuable

reefs and within marine preserves

Related to other priorities:

Increasing political will to protect coral reefs will trickle down and increase the effectiveness of all coral reef

management efforts

Q11. What aspects of coral reef management on Guam have been most successful?


Outreach and education:

Coral reef awareness and education campaigns with students

Giving people firsthand experiences with coral reefs through guided tours

Tasi Beach Guides project

Guardians of the Reef program

Community engagement in coral reef management

o Eyes of the Reef Marianas program

o Guam Community Coral Reef Monitoring Program

Guam Nature Alliance and the Environmental Education Committee

Kika Camp

Policies:

Ban on shark finning

Establishment of marine preserves

Local and federal regulations to reduce point and non-point source pollution

Protection of corals under the Endangered Species Act has impeded large-scale in water construction and

dredging activities

Research and monitoring:

Long-term coral reef monitoring program

Guam’s in situ coral nursery

Coral bleaching surveys

Other:

Collaboration among local and federal agencies, NGOs, businesses, and academic institutions (e.g. Guam Coral

Reef Response Team, Natural Resources Subcommittee on military build-up led by GCMP and BSP)

Involvement of scientists in coral reef management activities

Watershed restoration projects

Non-governmental activism aimed at development projects with high potential to impact nearshore coral

reefs

Q12. What aspects of coral reef management on Guam have been least successful?



December 2018

Outreach and education:

Insufficient/unclear/missing signage at beaches and marine preserves to prevent recreational use impacts

Lack of sustained effort to reduce fires in southern Guam

Policies:

Lack of regulations to implement and enforce laws (e.g. Eco-Permit law, Conservation Officer Reserve

program)

Lack of fisheries regulations and insufficient enforcement of existing regulations

Illegal fishing occurring in marine preserves

No statute to address vessel groundings or hold responsible parties accountable

Research and monitoring:

Studies conducted by visiting scientists who lack knowledge of long-term trends and Guam’s coral reef

ecology

Other:

Lack of political will/support

Conflicts with fishing community; lack of trust between agencies and fishers

Insufficient resources to manage reefs effectively

Not enough work with on-the-ground staff in the tourism industry

Installation of mooring buoys (project was funded, but most buoys were not installed)

Watershed restoration only implemented at small scale

Lack of storm water management

Ineffective efforts to reduce erosion and pollution and improve water quality

Q13. What are the biggest knowledge gaps that limit Guam’s ability to understand and manage its coral reef

ecosystems?


Related to climate change:

Lack of understanding of which corals and coral populations are most resilient (and least resilient) and why

Data to support efforts to mitigate warming (e.g. reef fountains, cooling systems)

Research to support selection of appropriate outplanting sites to improve success of reef restoration efforts

and scale-up restoration activities

Research on impacts of ocean acidification on Guam’s corals

Analysis of coral bleaching data collected since 2013

How climate change may impact spread and abundance of coral diseases and nuisance and invasive species

Research to increase understanding of the impacts of climate change on human communities and how

communities can best adapt to these changes

Related to LBSP:

Quantification of impacts of storm water runoff, nutrient loads and inputs, and sedimentation on coral reefs

How to effectively mitigate sedimentation from erosion of southern grasslands


December 2018

Lack of knowledge or application of best management practices in construction and development projects

Need pilot projects demonstrating effectiveness of watershed restoration approaches

Related to fish and fisheries:

Effects of commercial fishing on Guam’s fish communities

Need more fisheries dependent data

Data on status of Guam’s reef fish communities, relative abundance of functional groups, and impacts of

fishing on these assemblages

Identification of overfishing thresholds and tipping points

Data on life histories that can be applied to create species-specific regulations

Data on effectiveness of marine preserves

Need better understanding of demand and market for reef fish on Guam

Impacts of overharvesting of sea cucumbers (balate’) on Guam’s reef communities

Likely effects of climate change on fishery productivity

Other:

Need to better understand the individual and interactive effects of local stressors and climate change on

Guam’s coral reefs

Need more applied research that is relevant to management instead of basic science

Past, current, and likely future changes in coral reef community composition and overall reef health and

impacts on ecosystem functioning

Population genetics and connectivity of Guam’s corals

Updated assessment on the economic value of Guam’s reefs

Lack of public awareness and understanding of coral reef ecosystems

Lack of awareness of traditional knowledge and practices among reef managers

Insufficient communication of scientific findings to inform management

Need for assessment of effectiveness of local natural resources management agencies and their projects and

programs

Q14. What are the biggest capacity gaps that limit Guam’s ability to effectively manage its coral reef

ecosystems?


Related to outreach and education:

Need more resources (staff and funding) to make outreach more effective

Lack of agency presence and engagement in communities

Need to improve levels of communication and trust between agencies and citizens

Increase outreach in schools (primary, secondary, and post-secondary)

Related to policies and regulations:

Insufficient legislation to protect coral reef resources and fisheries (e.g. need to ban scuba spearfishing and/or

gill nets, ban or strictly regulate balate’ harvesting, create licensing or permit system for fishing and

recreational use)

Lack of regulations to enforce fisheries legislation (Eco-permitting, Conservation Officer Reserve program)


December 2018

Need Coral Reef Protection Act to protect reefs from vessel groundings

Need legal experts who can draft new legislation and regulations

Insufficient prosecution of cases related to natural resource violations

Lack of political will and environmental stewardship among elected officials

Related to enforcement of existing regulations:

Lack of enforcement of fisheries regulations and marine preserves due to insufficient manpower and staff

Lack of enforcement of storm water and runoff issues in Tumon Bay

Need more Conservation Officers and funding for vehicles, equipment, etc.

Need to increase budgets for DAWR and GEPA

Related to technical capacity:

Not enough local staff trained in coral biology and identification

Federal government should hire personnel or contractors to sit within local agencies and build capacity

Technical staff need to be supported by mid- and upper-managers who can bring issues to legislature and

governor’s office

Need equipment, supplies, and expertise for reef restoration

Difficult to find qualified staff with technical expertise who are willing to accept low salaries offered by local

agencies

Related to partnerships:

Insufficient inreach among local agencies

Need to develop better relationships with business leaders and policy makers

Need a shared vision for coral reef management

More focused working groups that meet regularly

Other:

High staff turnover within local agencies

Insufficient resources and staff to reduce sedimentation on a large scale

No local non-profit organizations specifically focused on coral reef conservation

Need for a local non-profit group specializing in coral reef restoration

Need to shift from reactive to proactive coral reef management

Lack of infrastructure to manage storm water inputs

Ineffective or inappropriate prioritization of management actions

Q15. Do you have any suggestions for training activities, courses, or workshops that could address capacity gaps

in Guam’s coral reef management?


Workshop on building rain gardens and/or community gardens

Training on increasing effectiveness of communication (including communication of climate change impacts)

and outreach efforts

Workshop with natural resource managers and fishing community using effective mediation techniques

Training program and/or educational videos in multiple languages to reduce recreational use impacts


December 2018

Workshop or training on identifying coral species and coral diseases

Training on COTS removal methods

Training in reef restoration methods and development of a scientifically-sound strategy for reef restoration

Training in climate change adaptation approaches

Workshop on evaluating effectiveness of management efforts

Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration training

Workshop on strategic planning and project design including commitments from participants to complete

tasks after the training


December 2018

APPENDIX II: List of attendees from the Strategizing for Reef Resilience Workshop

Strategizing for Reef Resilience Workshop

November 8, 2017 – Hall of Governors, Governor’s Complex, Adelup

Workshop Participants

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Bureau of Statistics and Plans:

• Carl Dominguez

• Lola Leon Guerrero

• Millie Erguiza

• Tina Mafnas

• Whitney Hoot

• Patrick Keeler

Guam Coastal Management Program:

• Gil Suguitan • Francis Damian

Guam Department of Agriculture:

• Nathan Rios • Nathaniel Martin • Richard Ragadio

Guam Visitors Bureau:

• Meriza Peredo

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

• Val Brown • Adrienne Loerzel • Marybelle Quinata

National Park Service:

• Allison Miller • Ashton Williams

US Fish and Wildlife Service:

• Jeried Calaor

Department of Defense-Naval Facilities Engineering Command:

• Hilary Goodwin • Tammy Summers

UNIVERSITY OF GUAM

University of Guam Marine Laboratory:

• Laurie Raymundo, PhD

• Tom Schils, PhD

• Dave Burdick

• David Combosch, PhD

• Andrea Hershberger

• Nicole Burns

University of Guam Center for Island Sustainability:

• Phil Cruz • Matthew Putnam • Michael Rucinski

University of Guam Sea Grant Program:

• Marie Auyong • Naomi Borg


December 2018

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

Humatak Community Foundation:

• Joe Quinata • Fred Gofigan

The Nature Conservancy:

• Farron Taijeron

LOCAL BUSINESSES

Fish Eye Marine Park:

• Akihiro Tani • Renny Loren

Underwater World:

• Mike McCue

COMMUNITY

Private citizens:

• Luis Cabral


December 2018

APPENDIX III: List of attendees from the Climate-smart Design for Coral Reef Management Workshop

Climate-smart Design for Coral Reef Management Workshop

September 24-25, 2018 – Latte Room, Pacific Star Resort & Spa, Tumon

Workshop Participants

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Bureau of Statistics and Plans:

• Carl Dominguez

• Mallory Morgan

• Whitney Hoot

• Patrick Keeler

Guam Department of Agriculture:

• Celestino Aguon • Nathaniel Martin

Guam Environmental Protection Agency:

• Margaret Aguilar • Taryn Mesa

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

• Val Brown • Adrienne Loerzel • Marybelle Quinata

National Park Service:

• Mike Gawel • Ashton Williams

UNIVERSITY OF GUAM

University of Guam Marine Laboratory:

• Jason Biggs, PhD

• David Combosch, PhD

• Dave Burdick

• Abram Townsend

• Andrea Hershberger

• Julia Berg

Frank Camacho

• Andrew McInnis

• Mariel Cruz

• Constance Sartor

• Lourdes Mafnas

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

The Nature Conservancy:

• Farron Taijeron

LOCAL BUSINESSES

Underwater World:

• Sara Hamilton


December 2018

APPENDIX IV: Guam Vulnerability Assessment for CCAP Workshop

COMMUNITY NAME: Guam, Mariana Islands

INDICATORS OF A CHANGING CLIMATE

Climate Threat Impacts

Indicator Magnitude and direction of change over time based on community knowledge and latest climate science

Changes in environmental

conditions (Climate Stressors)

Potential impacts to natural and social

resources

Air/land temperature

Air temperature has increased and is projected to continue increasing in Guam. Land is expected to continue warming, especially at higher elevations. Historical: Average air temperature on Guam is 26°C (79°F) and air temperatures are relatively uniform throughout the year. Globally, mean land temperature increased by 0.74°C (1.3°F) during the 20th century and 0.13°C (0.21°F) per decade in the past 50 years, almost twice the rate of warming that occurred during the first half of the century (0.07°C or 0.13°F). Projected: By the end of the 21st century (2080-2099), surface air temperature over Guam is expected to increase by 1.5-2.0°C under RCP4.5 (medium emissions scenario) and by 3.0-3.5°C under RCP8.5 (high emissions scenario).

Warmer temperatures; higher rates of evapo-transpiration; shifts in rainfall patterns with potential increased drought conditions and possible changes in ocean salinity

Shifts in composition and distribution of native and non-native species; biodiversity loss; loss of soil-stabilizing vegetation and increased erosion; increased fire risk, causing erosion and danger to people and property; threats to human health (e.g. heat stroke); increased power consumption for aircon; decreased tourism

Sea-surface temperature

Water temperature has increased and is projected to continue to increase in Guam with moderate inter-annual and inter-decadal variability. Historical: Pacific Ocean sea temperatures exhibit strong inter-annual and decadal fluctuations. Climatic variability has increased, and is projected to continue increasing, in the North Pacific region. Since the 1950s, these waters have shown a warming trend from 0 to 200 m (0 to 656 ft) depth by as much as 2°C (3.6°F). Mean sea temperature increased by an average of 0.35°C (0.63°F) per decade for Guam between 1985 and 2012. Guam’s coral reefs experienced thermal stress that likely resulted in mild to moderate coral bleaching (4 degree heating weeks, DHW) 19 times and warming that may have caused severe bleaching (8 DHW) eight times during that same period. Approximately half of Guam’s reefs experienced moderate thermal stress 5+ times during that period. Between 2002 and 2012, Guam’s reefs experienced moderate to severe stress nine times, three times more frequently than in the preceding ten year period. Projected: All of Guam’s coral reefs are expected to experience severe thermal stress annually by 2045

Warming seas; increased ocean stratification and deoxygenation of deep waters

Coral bleaching and loss of reef habitat and associated fish; shifts in marine species distribution and pelagic migration patterns; shifts in fish behavior; impacts to fisheries and cultural fishing practices; decreased coastal protection due to loss of reef structure; shifts in prevalence and distribution of coral diseases; decreased tourism


December 2018








resources

under emissions scenario RCP8.5, which assumes that climate policies will be ineffective. Under RCP4.5, which assumes greater reduction of emissions than what is currently committed under existing climate policies, indicates that Guam’s reefs will experience annual severe thermal stress by 2050, only five years later. Due to decreased ventilation and lower solubility of O2 in warmer, more stratified water, oxygen minimum zones are expanding in the tropical Pacific Ocean. Compared to 1870-1899 temperatures, global SST under RCP8.5 is expected to increase by 1.5°C (2.7°F) by 2050 and 3.2°C (5.8°F) by 2100. Increased thermal stress may be experienced during ENSO years.

Sea level Sea level has risen and is projected to continue to rise in Guam with high inter-annual and inter-decadal variability. Historical: Global average sea level has risen by about 20.32 cm (8 in) since 1900. Since the early 1990s, the rate of global mean SLR is estimated to be 0.34 + 0.04 cm/year (0.134 ± 0.016 in/year) according to satellite altimeter measurements. This is two times the estimated rate for the entire 20th century based on tide gauge reconstructions. Regional SLR trends may significantly differ from the mean global rate over multi-year to multi-decadal time scales due to shifting wind patterns and ocean circulation fluctuations. Since 1993, SLR rate for the western Pacific region is as much as three times the global average. Projections: On Guam, sea level is expected to increase by 0.8 m (2.62 ft) during the 21st century. Climate models predict mean global SLR of 15 to 61 cm (6 to 24 in) by the end of this century. Including potential contributions from changes in ice-sheet discharge dynamics results in an additional 10 to 20 cm (4 to 8 in) of SLR. During the 21st century, the rate sea level rise in the Pacific region is expected to match the global average. "Semi-empirical models" estimate higher global SLR, ranging from approximately 0.91 to 1.52 m (3 to 5 ft) by 2100.

Increased storm surges and king tides; more frequent coastal inundation and larger areas of inundation; increased erosion; increased episodic flooding

Damage to infrastructure, homes, and cultural sites; loss of public and private property leading to potential conflict; decreased coastal water quality; coastal flooding and drainage issues; increased immigration from low-lying islands to Guam, leading to potential conflicts and increased pressure on resources; decreased tourism; increased demand for sea walls

Rainfall

Rainfall has increased slightly and is expected to moderately increase in Guam, although the change may not be significant.

Potentially more droughts and extreme events (e.g.

Damage to property and danger to people; impacts to


December 2018








resources

Historical: Average annual rainfall for Guam is ~260 cm (102 in), with the wet season stretching from July to November (70% of annual rainfall occurs during this period). A small increase in mean annual rainfall has been detected for Guam and CNMI, with high ENSO-related variability. Rainfall is the source of all freshwater on Guam. Projections: Under both moderate (RCP 4.5) and high (RCP8.5) emissions scenarios, Guam is not expected to experience statistically significant change in rainfall patterns by the end of this century. More rainfall may occur, but with high inter-annual and inter-decadal variability.

floods, fires, landslides); increased runoff of sediments and pollutants; changes in ocean salinity

agriculture and livestock; issues with freshwater availability; degraded water quality along coast and increased sedimentation; increased algae abundance; decreased coral settlement; decreased tourism; increased mosquitos and mosquito-borne diseases

Extremes: Drought & Heavy Rain

Guam expects to experience fewer but more intense tropical cyclones with high inter-decadal variability and shifting location of extra-tropical storm tracks. Episodic droughts are expected to continue. Historical: Droughts are common on Guam and may be severe. Projected: More intense (although less frequent) typhoons may result in more intense rainfall events. ENSO may increase frequency of droughts. By the end of the 21st century, the frequency of weak tropical cyclones around Guam (within 500 km) is predicted to decrease, while the frequency of strong tropical cyclones is projected to increase.

Potentially more droughts and extreme events (e.g. floods, fires, landslides); increased runoff of sediments and pollutants; changes in ocean salinity

Damage to property and danger to people; impacts to agriculture and livestock; issues with freshwater availability; degraded water quality along coast and increased sedimentation; increased algae abundance; decreased coral settlement; decreased tourism; increased mosquitos and mosquito-borne diseases

Ocean pH Ocean acidity has increased (decreased pH) and is projected to continue to increase in Guam. Historical: Ocean acidity has increased by ~26% since the preindustrial era. Historical and current

observations of aragonite saturation state (Ωar) show a decrease from about 3.8 to 3.6 in the past two decades. Aragonite is very important for reef-building corals; an aragonite saturation state of > 4.0 is optimal

Less available calcium carbonate to form skeletons and shells, impacting corals and other calcifying organisms

Decreased growth and survival of corals and other calcifying organisms; biodiversity loss; loss of reef fish habitat and altered fish behavior; weaker shells/skeletons of


December 2018








resources

for the formation of coral skeletons; a state of 3.5-4.0 is adequate; 3.0-3.5 is marginal; and < 3.0 is extremely marginal.

Projections: For Guam, Ωar is expected to change by -0.6 from 2006-2050, potentially causing a 9% decline in calcification rates. Ocean water has a natural pH of ~8.2; at 560 ppm CO2, pH is expected to decline to 7.92. Major ecological shifts are expected at pH of 7.8.

In the Pacific, Ωar is expected to have decreased enough to decrease coral survival and growth rates by 2035 to 2060.

marine plankton and shellfish; decreased coastal protection due to lost reef structure; impacts to fisheries and cultural fishing practices; decreased tourism

Ocean circulation

No consensus on how ocean circulation will change, but ENSO will continue to be a source of consistent climate variability. Guam is situated within an ENSO core region and the island experiences inter-annual variations of rainfall and drought-like conditions following El Niño cycles. During El Niño events, max annual temperatures for Guam are generally cooler than average.

Potential changes in circulation, sea level, rain patterns, drought, extreme rain events, king tides

Changes in freshwater availability; shifts in connectivity and larval distribution for corals, fishes, etc.

Typhoons/ Severe storms

Guam expects to experience fewer but more intense tropical cyclones with high inter-decadal variability and shifting location of tropical storm tracks. Historical: Guam is situated in a very active region for tropical storms. Since 1994, the island has been hit by four typhoons with sustained wind speeds > 240 km per hour (150 mph). Tropical storms develop quickly and generally occur in the more humid summer months and are more likely in ENSO years. Projections: While there is still little consensus as to how storms in the Pacific may be affected by climate change, most agree that increases in atmospheric and ocean temperatures will alter storm frequency, tracks, and intensity. These changes will modify the timing, magnitude, and patterns of large storm waves in the basin. Overall, Guam is expected to have fewer but more intense storms. By the end of the 21st century, the frequency of weak tropical cyclones around Guam (within 500 km) is predicted to decrease, while the frequency of strong tropical cyclones is projected to increase. ENSO may increase cyclonic activity.

Potentially more intense; possible change in tracks

Danger to people and property; increased power outages; impacts to fragile branching species (e.g. staghorn Acropora) and associated loss of fish habitat; decreased tourism


December 2018

TARGET RESOURCE: Coral reefs of Guam, Mariana Islands Condition and Trend Rating

CONDITION AND TRENDS: Guam’s coral reefs are in fair condition overall. Condition is declining

due to coral bleaching, overfishing (including unsustainable take of herbivores), LBSP, COTS

outbreaks, and invasive species.

FAIR ↓

CLIMATE THREATS EXPOSURE SENSITIVITY POTENTIAL IMPACT

(Exposure + Sensitivity)

ADAPTIVE CAPACITY

VULNERABILITY (Potential Impact + Adaptive Capacity)

Warming SST resulting in increased frequency and severity of coral bleaching events

Ocean acidification resulting in declining coral calcification rates

Slightly higher annual rainfall and more severe (although less frequent) storm events may increase LBSP impacts on coral reefs

Very little protection from high exposure to these climate change-related impacts

Coral reefs have high sensitivity to increased SST

Guam’s coral reefs experienced severe bleaching 4/5 years from 2013 to 2017

High potential impact: Coral reefs are highly exposed and highly sensitive to climate impacts

Medium adaptive capacity: Some coral reefs exposed to previous bleaching events have recovered

Improved watershed management is needed to reduce LBSP

Coral reef vulnerability to climate change is rated as high

Exposure Rating

Sensitivity Rating

Potential Impact Rating

Adaptive Capacity Rating

Vulnerability Rating

HIGH HIGH HIGH MEDIUM HIGH

VULNERABILITY STATEMENT:

Condition and Trends: Guam’s coral reefs are in fair condition but are continuing to decline due to bleaching, overfishing, LBSP, COTS outbreaks, and invasive species.

Vulnerability: Coral reefs are vulnerable to increased SST, ocean acidification, and increased LBSP.

Resource Dependency: Guam’s coral reefs provide food to some community members and support a growing tourism industry that hosts 1/3 of all jobs on the island.


December 2018

APPENDIX V: Guam’s priority sites and fisheries taxa for coral reef management

Target watersheds

1. Manell-Geus watershed

2. Piti-Asan watershed

3. Tumon Bay watershed (Yigo-Tumon sub-basin of

the Northern Guam Lens Aquifer)

Priority marine preserves

1. Achang Reef Flat Marine Preserve

2. Piti Bomb Holes Marine Preserve

3. Tumon Bay Marine Preserve

Restoration areas

1. Manell-Geus Habitat Focus Area

2. Piti Bomb Holes Marine Preserve

3. Tumon Bay Marine Preserve

Key fisheries taxa (29 species in nine families)

1. Acanthuridae (surgeonfishes)

a. Acanthurus lineatus

b. Acanthurus xanthopterus

c. Naso literatus

d. Naso unicornis

2. Lutjanidae (snappers, fusiliers)

a. Aprion virescens

3. Scaridae (parrotfishes)

a. Bolbometopon muricatum

b. Chlorurus microrhinos

c. Chlorurus spilurus

d. Hipposcarus longiceps

e. Scarus altipinnis

f. Scarus forsteni

g. Scarus psittacus

h. Scarus rubroviolaceus

i. Scarus schlegeli

4. Carangidae (jacks, pompanos, mackerels, runners,

scads)

a. Caranx melampygus

5. Serranidae (groupers, rockcods)

a. Cephalopholis sonnerati

b. Epinephelus fasciatus

c. Plectropomus laevis

d. Plectropomus leopardus

e. Variola louti

6. Labridae (wrasses)

a. Cheilinus trilobatus

b. Cheilinus undulatus

7. Lethrinidae (emperors, breams)

a. Lethrinus harak

b. Lethrinus obsoletus

c. Lethrinus rubrioperculatus

8. Mullidae (goatfishes)

a. Mulloidichthys flavolineatus

9. Siganidae (rabbitfishes)

a. Siganus argenteus

b. Siganus punctatus

c. Siganus spinus

guam coral reef resilience...

Documents